Karnataka High Court

Sri M V Thomas Since Deceased By His Lrs vs Mr B K Isubu on 5 March, 2024

Author: Jyoti Mulimani

Bench: Jyoti Mulimani

                                                   -1-
                                                             NC: 2024:KHC:9232
                                                          MFA No. 3254 of 2013




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                               DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

                                               BEFORE

                              THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI

                      MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3254 OF 2013 (MV)

                      BETWEEN:

                            SRI M.V.THOMAS
                            SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S,

                      1.    SMT. ELIAMMA
                            AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
                            W/O LATE M.V.THOMAS,

                      2.    SMT. MARY @ MARIAMMA
                            AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
                            D/O LATE M.V.THOMAS,

                      3.    SMT. SUSAMMA
                            AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
                            D/O LATE M.V.THOMAS,

Digitally signed by   4.    SMT. MINI
THEJASKUMAR N
                            AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF                    D/O LATE M.V.THOMAS,
KARNATAKA
                      5.    SRI. SANTHOSH
                            AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
                            S/O LATE M.V.THOMAS,

                      6.    SMT. SAVITHA
                            AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
                            D/O LATE M.V.THOMAS

                      7.    SMT. SMITHA
                            AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
                            D/O LATE M.V.THOMAS.
                             -2-
                                            NC: 2024:KHC:9232
                                         MFA No. 3254 of 2013




     ALL ARE RESIDING AT BARIKALA HOUSE,
     NOOJIBALTHILA VILLAGE,
     PUTTUR TALUK,
     D.K. 574 201.
                                                  ...APPELLANTS
                                                                ,

( BY SRI. PUNDIKAI ISHWARA BHAT., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   MR.B.K.ISUBU
     AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
     S/O ABOOBAKKAR,
     RESIDING AT BALADHA BAILU HOUSE,
     KOKKADA VILLAGE,
     BELTHANGADY TALUK,
     D.K-574 214.

2.   THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
     DIVISIONAL OFFICE: RAMBHAVAN COMPLEX,
     KODIALBAIL, MANGALORE-575 003.
     REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

3.   MR. V.VIJAYAN, MAJOR,
     S/O K.R.PODIYAN,
     MITTHODY VILLAGE,
     NOOJIBALTHILA VILLAGE,
     PUTTUR TALUK,
     D.K-574 201.
                                                 ...RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE TO R1 AND R3-DISPENSED WITH;
     BY SRI. ANUP SEETHARAMA., ADVOCATE FOR
     SRI. B.C.SEETHARAMA RAO., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

       THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:20.06.2012
PASSED    IN   MVC   NO.1356/2005   ON     THE    FILE   OF   THE
PRINCIPAL      SENIOR   CIVIL     JUDGE,    MEMBER,       MACT,
MANGALORE.
                                  -3-
                                                 NC: 2024:KHC:9232
                                            MFA No. 3254 of 2013




      THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION,      THIS     DAY,    THE     COURT    DELIVERED    THE
FOLLOWING:
                            JUDGMENT

Sri.Pundikai Ishwara Bhat., learned counsel for the

appellants has appeared in person.

Sri.Anup., learned counsel on behalf of

Sri.B.C.Seetharama Rao., for respondent No.2 has appeared in

person.

2. Though the appeal is listed today for admission,

with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties, it

is heard finally.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be

referred to as per their status and rankings before the Tribunal.

4. It is the case of the claimant that on the 03rd day of

October 2004 at about 8:45 a.m., he was a pillion on the

motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-21-H-8158 and

Mr.Vijayan was riding the motorcycle on Kadaba to Kallugudda

Road at Kudatmureel, Kutrupaddy village, Puttur Taluk. At that

time the driver of the Jeep No.KA-19-N-6619 drove the same in

a rash and negligent matter and hit him and Vijayan who was

NC: 2024:KHC:9232

riding the motorcycle. Due to the impact, he sustained grievous

injuries. He was taken to City Hospital, Mangalore, Kshema

Hospital Deralakatte. Hence, he filed claim petition seeking

compensation. During the pendency of the petition, he

succumbed to injuries on 29.07.2008. Hence, his legal

representatives were brought on record.

In response to the notice, respondents 1 and 3 remained

absent. Hence, they were placed ex-parte. Respondent No.2

Insurance Company appeared through its counsel and filed

written statement. Among other grounds prayed for dismissal

of the claim petition. The fourth respondent appeared through

their counsel but neither filed written statement nor

participated in the proceedings.

Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed

issues, parties led evidence and marked the documents. The

Tribunal vide Judgment dated:20.06.2012 allowed the claim

petition in part. It is this Judgment that is called into question

in this appeal on several grounds as set-out in the

Memorandum of appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants and respondent

No.2 have urged several contentions.

NC: 2024:KHC:9232

Learned counsel for the appellants in presenting his

arguments vehemently contended that the Tribunal has erred

in awarding meagre compensation. He argued by saying that

the compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires

enhancement. Counsel therefore, submits that the appeal may

be allowed.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 justified the

Judgment and award of the Tribunal. He submits that the

appeal is devoid of merits and the same may be dismissed.

Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective

parties and perused the appeal papers and also the records

with utmost care.

6. The point that would arise for consideration is

whether the Claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation?

7. The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require

reiteration. The Claimants appeal is one for enhancement of

compensation and modification of the judgment. The grounds

urged in the present appeal are mainly relating to the meager

compensation awarded under different heads by the Tribunal.

NC: 2024:KHC:9232

It is noticed that the Tribunal has awarded compensation

of Rs.2,16,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Sixteen Thousand only)

towards Loss of dependency. It is contended that the deceased

was working as a Security guard and he was earning

Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) per month. However,

there is no proof of income for the same. In the absence of any

proof of income, the chart prepared by the Legal Service

Authority must be taken into consideration.

As per the chart, the salary of the deceased must be

taken as Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four Thousand only) per month.

The age of the deceased was 56 years as on the date of

accident, hence the multiplier 9 is to be adopted. Hence, the

amount towards the loss of dependency is as under:

CALCULATION OF LOSS OF DEPENDENCY FUTURE PROSPECTUS:

It is taken into consideration at 10% as per chart because the age of deceased is between 50 to 60.

4,000 X 10/100 = 400 4,000 + 400 = 4,400 4,400 divided by 1/3 = 1,466.66 4,400 - 1,466.66 = 2,933.34 2933.34 x 12 x 9 =3,16,800/- Rs.3,16,800/-

NC: 2024:KHC:9232

This Court deems it appropriate to award Rs.15,000/-

(Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) towards Loss of estate

expenses as against Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only)

awarded by the Tribunal.

This Court deems it appropriate to award Rs.20,000/-

(Rupees Twenty Thousand only) towards loss of consortium as

against Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), Rs.20,000/-

(Rupees Twenty Thousand only) towards loss of love and

affection as against Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only,

Rs.15,000 (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) towards funeral and

obsequies as against Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only),

Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) towards medicine

and hospital charges as against Rs.38,450/- (Rupees Thirty

Eight Thousand Four Hundred and Fifty only) and Rs.10,000/-

(Rupees Ten Thousand only) towards attendant and

conveyance charges as against Rs.9,000/- (Rupees Nine

Thousand only) awarded by the Tribunal.

8. Accordingly, this Court re-determines the

compensation as under:-

NC: 2024:KHC:9232

1. Loss of dependency 3,16,800 Rs.3,16,800/-

2. Loss of estate 10,000 + 5,000 Rs.15,000/-

3. Loss of consortium 10,000 + 10,000 Rs.20,000/-

4. Loss of love and 10,000+ 10,000 Rs.20,000/- affection

5. Funeral and obsequies 10,000 + 5,000 Rs.15,000/-

6. Medicine and Hospital 38,450 + 1,550 Rs.40,000/- Charges

7. Attendant and 9,000 + 1,000 Rs.10,000/-

Conveyance charges Total: Rs.4,36,800/-

(Less) Compensation awarded by the - Rs.3,03,450/-

Tribunal:

Enhanced compensation awarded by Rs.1,33,350/-

this Court:

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case

and the prevailing rate of interest during the relevant time, this

Court deems it appropriate to award interest at the rate of 6%

per annum on the enhanced compensation amount from the

date of claim petition till realization.

9. Hence, the following:

ORDER

1. The Miscellaneous First appeal is

allowed in part and the Judgment

dated:20.06.2012 passed by the Court of MACT,

NC: 2024:KHC:9232

Mangalore in M.V.C No.1356/2005 is modified to

the extent stated hereinabove.

2. The claimants are entitled for the

enhanced compensation of Rs.1,33,350/- (Rupees

One Lakh Thirty Three Thousand Three Hundred

and Fifty only) with interest at the rate of 6% per

annum from the date of the claim petition till the

date of realization.

3. The second respondent - Insurance

Company shall deposit the enhanced compensation

amount along with 6% interest within a period of

two months from the date of receipt of the certified

copy of this Judgment.