Karnataka High Court
Maliyappa Bhimappa Talawar vs Barayan Bhimappa Sakaladagi on 5 March, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4866
MFA No. 104266 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 104266 OF 2018 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
MALIYAPPA BHIMAPPA TALAWAR,
(SINCE DECEASED REP. BY HIS LRS),
1. YAMANAVVA W/O. MALIYAPPA TALAWAR,
AGE: 50 YRS, OCC: H. H. WORK.
2. BASAVVA D/O. MALIYAPPA TALAWAR,
AGE: 25 YRS, OCC: NIL,
BOTH ARE R/O. YALLIGUTTI,
TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587116.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SIDDAPPA SAJJAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. BARAYAN BHIMAPPA SAKALADAGI,
AGE: 43 YRS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: AT POST: TULASIGERI,
Digitally TQ: BAGALKOT-587103.
signed by
JAGADISH T R
Location:
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
HIGH COURT UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD,
OF MELLIGERI COMPLEX, BAGALKOT-587103.
KARNATAKA
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SRINIVAS NAIK & SRI. SAI KIRAN NAIK, ADV. FOR R1;
SRI. M. Y. KATAGI, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF
MV ACT TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND ON EXAMINATION OF THE
SAME MAY BE PLEASED TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AND
AWARD COMPENSATION AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANTS BY
MODIFYING AWARD DATED 02/05/2018, IN MVC NO.338/2013
PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE MEMBER M.A.C.T NO.IV BAGALKOT
AT: BAGALKOT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4866
MFA No. 104266 of 2018
JUDGMENT
Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the
consent of learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for
final disposal.
2. This appeal is filed by the legal heirs of the
deceased seeking for enhancement of compensation being
aggrieved by the judgment & award dated 02.05.2018 passed
in MVC.No.338/2013 by the Member M.A.C.T-IV, Bagalkot (for
short, 'Tribunal').
3. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that on
06.03.2013 at about 23:45 hours one Bhimappa and another
Rangappa were proceeding on a motorcycle bearing registration
No.KA-29/V-9385 from Bevinamatti to Yalligutti after attaining
the Durgamma Devi Jatra. At that time, Bhimappa was riding
the motorcycle and nearby the field of Tapashetti, the trailer
bearing registration No.KA-29/TA-6387 was parked with loaded
sugarcane standing without any indicators or signal and none of
the person was present near the trailer. The said Bhimappa
dashed to the trailer from backside and sustained injuries.
Thereafter, he was taken to District Hospital and for further
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4866
treatment, he was taken to Dr. Katti hospital and has spent
over Rs.50,000/- for medical expenses and Rs.10,000/-
towards conveyance, diet and nourishment and he was in need
of Rs.50,000/- for future medical expenses. The legal heirs of
the deceased filed the claim petition before the Tribunal. It is
submitted that prior to the accident, the said Bhimappa was
doing mason work and getting monthly income of Rs.3,300/-. It
is submitted that the accident was happened due to rash and
negligent parking of trailer on the road side. As respondent
No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 being the insured, are
jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Hence,
pray for allowing the claim petition.
4. Respondent No.2 entered appearance, denied the
averments made in the claim petition. They have denied the
age, income and avocation of the deceased and sought for
dismissal of the claim petition.
5. The appellants examined two witnesses as PW1 and
PW2 and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P12. Respondent
No.2/Insurance Company examined its Authorized Officer as
RW1 and got marked documents as Exs.R1 and R2.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4866
6. The Tribunal after considering the rival contentions
of the parties, has partly allowed the claim petition filed under
Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, by awarding total
compensation of Rs.3,60,000/- along with interest at the rate
of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization
and held respondent No.2/Insurance Company liable to pay the
said compensation.
7. Sri. Siddappa Sajjan, learned counsel appearing for
the appellants/claimants submits that the Tribunal has
committed error in applying the multiplier of '18'. The deceased
was aged about 23 years as on the date of the accident and
hence the appropriate multiplier would be '17' as against '18'.
He also submits that the Tribunal has committed error in
deducting 50% of the assessed income of the deceased
towards the personal and living expenses which is contrary to
the provision of law. Hence, he seeks modification of the
judgment & award of the Tribunal by re-determining the
compensation amount.
8. Per contra, Sri. M.Y.Katagi, learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.2/Insurance Company fairly
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4866
submits that the Tribunal ought to have taken note of the
provision of law and ought to have deducted 1/3 towards the
personal and living expenses from the income of the deceased.
He argues that taking note of the evidence, the appropriate
multiplier would be applied and accordingly re-determine the
compensation.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the material available on record, the following
point would arise for consideration in this appeal:
Whether the claimants would be entitled for
enhanced compensation?
10. Answer to the above point would be in the
'affirmative' for the following reasons:
11. It is not in dispute that in the road accident dated
06.03.2013 one Bhimappa Tallawar sustained grievous injuries
and died due to the said accident. It is also not in dispute that
the claim petition is filed under Section 163-A of the Motor
Vehicles Act. Without taking note of the principle of law, the
Tribunal has committed grave error in deducting 50% of the
assessed income of the deceased towards his personal and
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4866
living expenses. This Court is of the considered view that the
appropriate deduction towards personal and living expenses of
the deceased would be 1/3 as against 50% taken by the
Tribunal. Accordingly, the compensation is required to be
re-determined. Similarly, the Tribunal has committed error in
applying '18' as multiplier. This Court taking note of the age of
the deceased at the time of the accident as 23 years deems it
appropriate to apply multiplier of '17'. The compensation
awarded on other heads is undisturbed. Thus, the claimants
would be entitled for modified compensation on the head of
loss of dependency as under:
Rs.40,000 x 17 x 2/3 = Rs.4,53,333/-
12. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to modified
compensation on the following heads:
Particulars Amount
(in Rs.)
Loss of dependency 4,53,333/-
Loss of estate 2,500/-
Funeral expenses 2,000/-
Loss of consortium 5,000/-
Total 4,62,833/-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4866
Thus, the claimant shall be entitled to total compensation
of Rs. 4,62,833/- as against Rs.3,60,900/- awarded by the
Tribunal.
13. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
a) Appeal stands allowed in part.
b) The impugned judgment and award of the
Tribunal is modified to an extent that the
claimant would be entitled to total compensation
of Rs.4,62,833/- as against Rs.3,60,900/-
awarded by the Tribunal.
c) The enhanced compensation amount shall carry
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the
date of petition till the date of payment.
d) The respondent No.2/Insurance Company shall
deposit the enhanced compensation amount with
accrued interest before the Tribunal within a
period of six weeks from today.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4866
e) The apportionment, deposit and disbursement of
enhanced compensation shall be made as per
award of the Tribunal.
f) Registry to transmit the records, if any, forthwith
to the Tribunal.
g) Draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RH
