Karnataka High Court
Sri Siddaiah S vs Govindaraj M on 5 March, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:9294-DB
MFA No. 5324/2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5324/2018 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI SIDDAIAH .S
S/O. LATE SIDDAIAH,
AGED 58 YEARS,
2. SMT. YASHODHA
W/O. BASAVARAJU K.B.
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT KENCHANNADODDI VILLAGE,
MALAVALLI TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 430.
Digitally signed by
MAHALAKSHMI B M
3. SRI RAVIKUMAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF S/O. SIDDAIAH,
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
APPELLANT NOS.1 & 3 ARE
R/AT BULLEKEMPANADODDI VILLAGE,
MALAVALLI TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571430.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. PADMAVATHI N., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:9294-DB
MFA No. 5324/2018
AND:
1. GOVINDARAJ .M
S/O. MANI,
AGED MAJOR,
R/AT NO.59, NAGIREDDI PALYAM,
NADU STREET, OLAGDAM,
BHAVANI TALUK, TAMILNADU - 638 301.
(OWNER OF THE CANTER
BEARING REG. NO.TN-36-AY-9034)
2. THE MANAGER
CHOLAMANDALAM,
M.S. GEN. INS. CO. LTD.,
CENTRE STREET, OLAGDAM,
BHAVANI, ERODE,
TAMILNADU - 638301.
(POLICY NO.3379/01081218/000/00
VALID FROM 26.08.2014 TO 25.08.2015)
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI LINGARAJ H.S., ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
R-1 - SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 27/04/2017, PASSED IN MVC NO.1025/2015,
ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT,
MALAVALLI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, K.S.HEMALEKHA J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:9294-DB
MFA No. 5324/2018
JUDGMENT
The claimants have preferred the present appeal
assailing the judgment and award dated 27.04.2017, in MVC
No.1025/2015 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and MACT,
Malavalli (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for the
sake of convenience), whereby, the Tribunal has awarded
compensation of Rs.6,69,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from
the date of petition till the date of realization.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per the ranking before the Tribunal.
3. Claimants filed claim petition seeking compensation
of Rs.25,00,000/- with interest on account of death of one
Deveeramma, who succumbed to the injuries sustained in a
road traffic accident that occurred on 08.07.2015, when the
deceased was proceeding in TVS XL Super moped bearing
registration No.KA-11-ED-7715 as a pillion rider, from
Kiragavalu Santhemaidana towards her native, at about
10.45 p.m., one Canter bearing registration No.TN-36-AY-
9034 driven by its driver came in a rash and negligent
NC: 2024:KHC:9294-DB
manner and dashed against the TVS Moped, due to which,
she fell down and the wheel of the Canter ran over her. She
died on spot.
4. Charge-sheet was laid against the driver of the
Canter. The claimants are the husband and two children of
the deceased. They claimed that the deceased was hale and
healthy at the time of the accident and was doing agriculture
and milk vending work, earning around Rs.10,000/- per
month and at the time of the accident, the deceased was 50
years and that the claimants were dependent upon the
deceased for their livelihood.
5. Pursuant to the notice issued by the Tribunal,
respondent No.1-owner of the Canter remained absent and
was placed exparte. Respondent No.2-insurer of the Canter
appeared and filed written statement.
6. According to respondent No.2, the driver of the
Canter was not holding valid and effective driving licence and
further stated that the compensation claimed by the
claimants is exorbitant.
NC: 2024:KHC:9294-DB
7. In order to substantiate their claim, the son of the
deceased examined himself as P.W.1 and two witnesses as
P.W.2 and P.W.3 and got marked documents at Exs.P.1 to
P.10. On the other hand, the insurer did not lead any
evidence.
8. The Tribunal, on basis of the oral and
documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due
to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Canter
bearing registration No.TN-36-AY-9034 and the deceased
Deveeramma succumbed to the injuries due to the impact of
the accident and thus, fastened the liability on the insurance
company awarding compensation of Rs.6,69,000/- under the
following heads:
1. Conveniences charges Rs.5,000-00
2. Funeral and Obsequies Rs.10,000-00
3. Loss of Love & Affection Rs.30,000-00
4. Loss of Estate Rs.6,24,000-00
NC: 2024:KHC:9294-DB
9. Heard Smt. Padmavathi .N, learned counsel for
the claimants and Sri Lingraj H.S., learned counsel for
respondent No.2-insurance company.
10. Respondent No.1 though served with the notice,
has chosen to remain absent.
11. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants
would contend that the deceased was doing agriculture and
milk vending work and she was earning Rs.10,000/- per
month as is evident from Ex.P.9 and P.10 and would contend
that the Tribunal has lost sight of this fact and has awarded
a sum of Rs.6,24,000/- under the head loss of estate by
considering the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per
month, which is contrary to material on record. Learned
counsel would contend that the claimants 2 and 3 have lost
their mother who was bread earner of the family and the
claimants were dependant upon the deceased for their
livelihood. Learned counsel would contend that the award of
compensation under the various heads is on the lower side
and contrary to the settled proposition of law.
NC: 2024:KHC:9294-DB
12. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
insurance company would contend that the deceased was
survived by her husband, a married daughter and major son
and in light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of
A. Manavalagan Vs. A. Krishnamurthy and Others1 the
deceased could have only saved 50% and would have spent
50% towards her personal expenses and reduction of 1/3rd
towards personal expenses under the head loss of
dependency by the Tribunal needs to be reassessed and just
and fair compensation needs to be awarded.
13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties,
the only point that arises for consideration is:
"Whether the compensation awarded under the
impugned award is just one in the present facts
and circumstances of the case?"
ANALYSIS
14. The time, date and occurrence of the accident is
not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the deceased
Deveeramma succumbed to the injuries and the driver of the
ILR 2004 KAR 3268
NC: 2024:KHC:9294-DB
Canter was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle, as is
evident from Ex.P.1 - the FIR and complaint, where the
complaint was lodged against the driver of the offending
vehicle for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338
and 304A of IPC. The Tribunal considering the material on
record held that the accident occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. No
appeal is preferred by the insurance company. Thus, the only
dispute is regarding the quantum of compensation awarded
by the Tribunal.
15. The material on record would indicate that the
deceased was survived by her husband-claimant No.1,
married daughter-claimant No.2 and major son-claimant
No.3. The Tribunal, while assessing the loss of dependency,
has deducted 1/3rd towards the personal expenses without
considering that the deceased would have saved 50% on her
personal expenses and by spending other 50% for family
needs. Hence, under the head loss of estate, the
compensation has to be reassessed.
NC: 2024:KHC:9294-DB
16. The Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the
deceased as Rs.6,000/-. The accident occurred in the year
2015. Considering the prevailing wage rates and cost of
living in the year 2015 and age and occupation of the
deceased, notional income to be taken at Rs.9,000/- per
month. Taking the income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/-
adding 10% towards future prospects as held by the Apex
Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd.
Vs. Pranay Sethi2 the income of the deceased would come
to Rs.9,900/- (9000 + 10% = 900). Deducting 50% towards
personal expenses, the income comes to Rs.4,950/-. As the
deceased was aged about 50 years, the applicable multiplier
is 13 and the compensation payable under the head loss of
estate is Rs.7,72,200/- (4,950 x 12 x 13).
17. The compensation under the other heads also
needs to be reassessed in light of the judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of United India Insurance Company
Limited vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and
2017 (16) SCC 680
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9294-DB
others3 (Satinder Kaur) and Magma General Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram & Others4 (Nanu Ram),
the claimants are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each under the
head loss of consortium, loss of estate Rs.15,000/- and
funeral expenses at Rs.15,000/- with 10% escalation.
Hence, the claimants are entitled for just and fair
compensation as under:
Sl. Heads Rs.
No.
1. Loss of dependency 7,72,200
2. Loss of consortium 1,32,000
(44,000 x 3)
3. Loss of estate 16,500
4. Funeral and obsequies 16,500
Total 9,37,200
Awarded by the Tribunal 6,69,000
Enhancement compensation 2,68,200
18. The claimants are entitled for compensation of
Rs.9,37,200/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. as against
Rs.6,69,000/-. The claimant is entitled to enhancement of
compensation by Rs.2,68,200/-. The point framed for
AIR 2020 SC 3076
2018 ACJ 2782
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9294-DB
consideration is answered accordingly. For the aforesaid
reasons, the appeal deserves to be allowed-in-part.
19. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is partly allowed.
(ii) The impugned award of the Tribunal is modified.
(iii) Compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
enhanced by Rs.2,68,200/- with interest thereon
at 6% per annum from the date of petition till its
realization excluding 337 days i.e., the period of
delay in filing the appeal.
(iv) Respondent No.2 shall deposit the enhanced
compensation before the Tribunal within four
weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this
order.
(v) Out of the enhanced compensation, claimant No.1
is entitled to 50%, claimant No.2 is entitled to
20% and claimant No.3 is entitled to 30% of the
amount.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9294-DB
(vi) The Tribunal shall release the said amount to
claimant Nos.1 to 3 digitally on furnishing
required documents.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
MBM
