Karnataka High Court

Jayalakshmi Bai vs Sunil Kumar B P on 5 March, 2024

Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur

Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur

                                          -1-
                                                        NC: 2024:KHC:9164
                                                   MFA No. 2414 of 2020




                     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. 2414 OF 2020 (MV-D)
                BETWEEN:
                1.   JAYALAKSHMI BAI,
                     W/O S. MAHADEVA RAO,
                     AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
                     R/AT NO.5/F, JAYALAKSHMI NILAYA,
                     GANAPATHI TEMPLE ROAD,
                     GIRIDARSHINI, ALANAHALLI LAYOUT,
                     MYSURU - 570 028.
                2.   SURESH RAO,
                     S/O MAHADEVA RAO,
                     AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
                     R/AT NO.5/F, JAYALAKSHMI NILAYA,
                     GANAPATHI TEMPLE ROAD,
                     GIRIDARSHINI, ALANAHALLI LAYOUT,
                     MYSURU - 570 028.
Digitally       3.   NAGESHA RAO,
signed by V          S/O MAHADEVA RAO,
KRISHNA
                     AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
Location:            R/AT NO.5/F, JAYALAKSHMI NILAYA,
High Court of
                     GANAPATHI TEMPLE ROAD,
Karnataka
                     GIRIDARSHINI, ALANAHALLI LAYOUT,
                     MYSURU - 570 028.
                4.   ABISHEK M.,
                     S/O S. MAHADEVA RAO,
                     AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
                     R/AT NO.5/F, JAYALAKSHMI NILAYA,
                     GANAPATHI TEMPLE ROAD,
                     GIRIDARSHINI, ALANAHALLI LAYOUT,
                             -2-
                                        NC: 2024:KHC:9164
                                     MFA No. 2414 of 2020




     MYSURU - 570 028.
                                            ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SHANTHARAJ K., ADVOCATE)

AND:
1.   SUNIL KUMAR B. P.,
     S/O B. V. PUTTARAJEGOWDA,
     AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
     R/AT NO.53,
     BALLENAHALLI VILLAGE,
     KRISHNARAJPETE TALUK,
     MYSURU - 571 812.

2.   ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
     LTD.,
     BY ITS MANAGER,
     1ST FLOOR, MAITHRY ARCADE,
     NEW KANTHARAJA URS ROAD,
     SARASWATHIPURAM,
     MYSURU - 570 009.
                                       ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B. PRADEEP., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
     VIDE ORDER DATED 03.08.2021, NOTICE TO R1 IS
     DISPENSED WITH;)

       THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.10.2019       PASSED IN MVC
NO. 1290/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, ADDITIONAL
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AS A PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR
ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MYSURU,      PARTLY ALLOWING
THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC,.

       THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                -3-
                                                 NC: 2024:KHC:9164
                                         MFA No. 2414 of 2020




                          JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred by the claimants challenging the

judgment and award dated 31.10.2019 passed by Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, Mysuru, Court of Additional Small

Causes and Senior Civil Judge, Mysuru (for short 'the Tribunal')

in MVC No.1290/2017. This appeal is founded on the premise

of inadequate and meager compensation. Hence, the

appellants seek enhancement of compensation.

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;

That on 08.11.2017 at about 5.00 p.m, deceased S.

Mahadev Rao was travelling on Scooter bearing registration

No.KA-55-Q-5381 towards J.P.Nagar Link road, during which

time the driver of TATA Ace bearing registration No.KA-54/5904

came in rash and negligent manner in high speed in the same

direction and took a sudden left turn and hit the Scooter of

deceased S. Mahadev Rao from hind side and caused accident.

Due to the impact of the vehicle deceased S.Mahadev Rao

sustained severe injuries to his body and shifted to JSS

NC: 2024:KHC:9164

Hospital, Mysuru where he took treatment as an inpatient, but

despite that said S. Mahadev Rao succumbed to the injuries on

21.11.2017.

3.1. The claimants who are the unfortunate widow and

the children of deceased filed claim petition seeking

compensation.

3.2. On service of notice, respondents filed statement of

objection, denying the claim of claimants including age,

avocation, income and the dependency of the claimants over

the deceased. Hence, sought for dismissal of the claim

petition.

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, the claimants got examined witnesses as PW.1 and

got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P16. On the other hand,

respondents got examined witness as RW.1, however, did not

adduce their evidence either oral or documentary.

3.5. On the basis of material evidence, both oral and

documentary and on hearing the submissions of learned

NC: 2024:KHC:9164

counsel for both parties, the tribunal awarded compensation of

Rs.5,68,840/- with interest @ 6% p.a. and directed respondent

No.2 - Insurance Company to pay the compensation within 30

days.

3.6. Being aggrieved by the meager compensation

awarded by the tribunal, the claimants are before this Court

challenging the impugned judgment and award.

4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the

appellants-claimants is that, the tribunal has committed an

error in awarding meagre compensation, which calls for

interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, he seeks

enhancement of compensation.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-

Insurance Company submits that the tribunal has rightly

awarded just and reasonable compensation, which does not call

for interference. Therefore, on these grounds, he seeks to

dismiss the appeal.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants -

claimants and the learned counsel for the respondent -

NC: 2024:KHC:9164

Insurance Company, perused the impugned judgment and

award on the document at Exs.P1 to P16. On careful perusal of

Exs.P1 to P7 which are the police records which clearly depict

the filing of the FIR and charge sheet as against the driver of

the offending vehicle TATA Ace. Exs.P7 to P16 are the copies of

the financial statement of pension order, hospital inpatient bill,

Bank passbook and Aadhaar Card. On perusal of Exs.P1 to P7,

the negligence is rightly attributed against the driver of

offending vehicle. What requires to be considered is the age,

income and avocation for awarding compensation. Ex.P14 is

the copy of the pension order, and Ex.P16 is the bank pass

book of the deceased person.

7. On perusal of the evidence PW.1, stated that her

deceased husband was securing monthly pension of

Rs.18,752/- p.m. On the cross examination, she admits that

her husband was getting pension of Rs.18,000/- p.m and

pursuant to his unfortunate death she is getting family pension

of Rs.9,000/- p.m. Apart from this PW.1, stated that her

husband was doing real estate work and admitted that no

documents have been produced to prove any income from the

NC: 2024:KHC:9164

said source. However, the tribunal has assessed the income to

be Rs.9,752/- p.m.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the

assessment made by the tribunal is incorrect, as even if

Rs.18,000/- is taken as the income as per Exs.P14 and P16,

which is apparently seen from the records, 1/4th has been

deducted by the tribunal, retaining the same as there is no

appeal preferred by the Insurance Company, the amount of

deduction to be Rs.4,500/-. Hence, the income for further

maintenance and sustenance of the family would be

Rs.13,500/-. Therefore, income is to be taken at Rs.13,500/-

p.m.

9. Age of the deceased was 69 years as on date of

occurrence of accident. The multiplier adopted by the tribunal

is '5', which does not call for interference. Therefore, towards

loss of dependency Rs.8,10,000/-(Rs.13,500/- x 12 x 5) is

awarded.

10. Towards loss of consortium, the tribunal awarded

Rs.40,000/- and towards love and affection Rs.50,000/-, in all,

Rs.90,000/- is awarded. There are four claimants, each would

be entitled to Rs.40,000/- per head. In the present case, there

NC: 2024:KHC:9164

are four dependents. Therefore, this Court deems it

appropriate to award Rs.1,60,000/-(Rs.40,000 x 4) along with

20% escalation, 10% for one block period, which would come

to Rs.32,000/- (Rs.1,60,000/- x 20%). In all, the claimants

would be entitled to Rs.1,92,000/- towards loss of

consortium.

11. The tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of

estate and Rs.25,000/- towards transportation of dead body

and funeral expenses. In all, Rs.40,000/- awarded by the

tribunal, which does not call for interference and the same is

retained.

12. In view of the above, the claimant would be entitled

to total compensation of Rs.10,42,000/- as against

Rs.5,68,840/- as mentioned in the table below:

               Heads                           Amount in Rs.

Loss of dependency                                      Rs.8,10,000-00

Loss of consortium                                      Rs.1,92,000-00

(+ 20% escalation)

                                                     NC: 2024:KHC:9164





Loss     of     estate   and                               Rs.40,000-00
transportation of dead body,
funeral expenses.


[
            TOTAL                             Rs.10,42,000-00

13. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

i) The appeal is allowed-in-part;

ii) The judgment and award dated 31.10.2019 passed in MVC.No.1290/2017 by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Additional Small Causes and Senior Civil Judge, Mysuru, is modified;