Karnataka High Court

Vishalakshamma. H. G vs Harish Gowda. R on 5 March, 2024

Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur

Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur

                                            -1-
                                                      NC: 2024:KHC:9220
                                                   MFA No. 7508 of 2022




                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                       DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
                                       BEFORE
                    THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
                   MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7508 OF 2022 (MV-D)
              BETWEEN:
              1.    VISHALAKSHAMMA H.G.
                    W/O.LATE NAGESHA C.S.
                    @ NAGESH KUMAR
                    AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
              2.    THANUSHREE
                    D/O.LATE NAGESHA C.S.
                    @ NAGESH KUMAR
                    AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS

                    SINCE MINOR, REP. BY
                    HER MOTHER NATURAL
                    GUARDIAN, APPPELLANT NO.1

                    APPELLANT NOS.1 & 2 ARE
                    R/AT NO.405, 1ST MAIN
                    18TH CROSS, SHIVAPURAM
                    BENGALURU-560 058

              3.    SHIVANNA SHETTY
Digitally
signed by B         @ SHIVA SHETTY
LAVANYA             S/O.LATE GANGASHETTY
Location:           AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
HIGH
COURT OF      4.    SEETHAMMA
KARNATAKA           W/O.SHIVANNA SHETTY
                    AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
                    APPELLANT NOS.3 & 4 ARE
                    R/AT CHAKKENAHALLI VILALGE
                    BELLU HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK
                    MANDYA DISTRICT
                                                          ...APPELLANTS
              (BY SRI N.R.RANGEGOWDA, ADVOCATE)
                              -2-
                                          NC: 2024:KHC:9220
                                       MFA No. 7508 of 2022




AND:

1.   HARISH GOWDA R.
     S/O.RAMAIAH
     MAJOR
     R/AT NO.C-35
     ADDIGENAHALLI VILALGE
     RAJANUKUNTE POST
     BENGALURU NORTH
     BENGALURU-560 064

2.   SBI GENERAL INS. CO. LTD.
     GROUND AND FIRST FLOOR
     RUKMIN TOWERS 3-1
     PLATFORM ROAD
     RAILWAY
     APPROACH ROAD
     SHESHADRIPURAM
     BENGALURU -560 020
                                            ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
   NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O/DTD.05.04.2023)

     THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.12.2021 PASSED IN
MVC.NO.1302/2020 BY MEMBER, MACT, XVI ADDITIONAL
JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MACT, BENGALURU AND
ETC.

    THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                        JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred by the claimants challenging

the judgment and award dated 01.12.2021 passed in

MVC.No.1302/2020 by the Court of XVI Additional Judge,

NC: 2024:KHC:9220

Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT, Bengaluru (for

short 'the tribunal'). This appeal is founded on the premise

of inadequacy of compensation awarded by the tribunal.

2. Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per

their status before the tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case are as under:

On 06.02.2020 at about 9.10 a.m., when the

deceased Nagesh @ Nagesh Kumar was a pedestrian and

trying to cross Bengaluru-Mangaluru NH-75 road, carefully

and cautiously observing all vehicles, near Chakenahalli-

Varahasandra gate, NH-75 Road, Bellur Hobli,

Nagamangala Taluk, Mandya District, a car bearing

registration No.KA-50-Z-8034 driven by its driver with

high speed in a rash and negligent manner, dashed

against the deceased. Due to this impact, the deceased fell

down and sustained severe injuries. He was immediately

shifted to Adichunchanagiri Hospital, B.G.Nagar, where

Doctor examined and declared him as dead on the way to

the Hospital.

NC: 2024:KHC:9220

3.1 It is stated that the deceased was hale and

healthy prior to the occurrence of accident. He was

working as an agriculturist and doing Coolie and earning a

sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. Due to the sudden and

untimely death of Nagesh, claimants being widow, a minor

child and parents filed a claim petition seeking

compensation.

3.2 On service of notice, respondents have filed

written statement denying the averments made in the

claim petition including age, avocation and income of the

deceased and sought for dismissal of the claim petition. It

was also contended the negligence was against the

deceased pedestrian, who was crossing the road without

carefully watching the vehicles plying on the busy road.

3.3 On the basis of pleadings, the tribunal framed

the relevant issues for consideration.

3.4 In order to substantiate the issues and to

establish the case, claimant No.1 got examined herself as

NC: 2024:KHC:9220

PW.1 and examined another witness as PW.2 and got

marked documents as Exs.P1 to P12. On the other hand,

the respondents got examined a witness as RW.1 and got

marked a document as Ex.R1.

3.5 On the basis of material evidence, both oral and

documentary and on hearing the submissions of learned

counsel for both parties, the tribunal awarded

compensation of Rs.22,87,600/- with interest @ 7% p.a.

and directed respondent No.2-Insurance Company to

deposit compensation amount within two months.

3.6 Being aggrieved by the meager compensation

awarded by the tribunal, the claimants are before this

Court seeking enhancement of compensation.

4. Learned counsel for appellants-claimants submits

that the tribunal has committed an error in awarding

meager compensation, which calls for interference at the

hands of this Court. Hence, he seeks to enhance the

compensation.

NC: 2024:KHC:9220

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2-

Insurance Company sustains the judgment and award of

the tribunal and contends that the tribunal has rightly

awarded just and reasonable compensation, which does

not call for interference. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the

appeal.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the

appellants-claimants and learned counsel for respondent

No.2-Insurance Company and perused the impugned

judgment and award, Exs.P1 to P6 are the Police records,

which depict the registering of FIR and laying of charge

sheet against the driver of offending car, which is not

challenged or disputed by the driver of the offending car.

Hence, the negligence is rightly attributed as against the

driver of the offending car.

7. Now coming to the age, avocation and income of

the deceased as on the date of occurrence of accident, the

tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at

Rs.11,000/- per month. However, the Legal Service

NC: 2024:KHC:9220

Authority chart prescribes the notional income of

Rs.14,500/- per month for the accident of the year 2020

and the same is taken in the present case. In view of the

age of the deceased was less than 40 years as on the date

of occurrence of accident, 40% will have to be added

towards future prospects and there being four dependants,

1/4th has to be deducted, which have been rightly taken by

the tribunal and the same do not call for interference and

are retained. The deceased was aged 33 years as on the

date of occurrence of accident and the multiplier applied

by the tribunal at '16' is correct, which also does not call

for interference and the same is retained. Therefore, the

claimants would be entitled to the compensation of

Rs.29,23,200/- (Rs.14,500/- + 40% = Rs.20,300/- -

1/4th = Rs.15,225/- x 12 x 16) towards loss of

dependency as against Rs.22,17,600/- awarded by the

tribunal.

8. The tribunal awarded Rs.40,000/- towards loss of

consortium, which is on the lower side. However, in view

NC: 2024:KHC:9220

of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay

Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 Supreme

Court Cases 680, which has been subsequently followed

by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Magma

General Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram and

others, reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 and United

India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur Alias

Satwinder Kaur reported in AIR 2020 SC 3076 each

dependents would be entitled to Rs.40,000/-. Therefore,

there being four dependents, the claimants would be

entitled to Rs.1,60,000/- (Rs.40,000/- x 4) and 10%

escalation for one block period on the same to be awarded

under this head, which would come to Rs.1,76,000/-

(Rs.1,60,000/- + 10%).

9. The tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards

transportation of dead body and funeral expenses and

Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, which do not call for

interference and the same are retained and 10%

NC: 2024:KHC:9220

escalation for one block period on the same to be

awarded, which would come to Rs.33,000/- (Rs.30,000/-

+ 10%).

10. In view of the above, the claimants would be

entitled to a total compensation of Rs.31,32,200/- as

against Rs.22,87,600/- as mentioned in the table below:

             Heads                            Amount in Rs.
Loss of dependency                               29,23,200-00
Loss of consortium                                1,76,000-00
Transportation of dead body and                     33,000-00
funeral expenses
             TOTAL                                31,32,200-00

11. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

i) The appeal is allowed-in-part;

ii) The judgment and award dated 01.12.2021

passed in MVC.No.1302/2020 by the Court of XVI

Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member,

MACT, Bengaluru, is modified;