Karnataka High Court
Huligamma W/O Late D. Nagendrappa vs Tamarapalli Lokeswara Rao S/O ... on 6 March, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4906
MFA No. 100505 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYAKUMAR A. PATIL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100505 OF 2021 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. HULIGAMMA
W/O. LATE D. NAGENDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.
2. KUMARI SHILPA N,
D/O. LATE D. NAGENDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS,
3. KUMARI AMBIKA
D/O. LATE D. NAGENDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS.
4. VINOD S/O. LATE D. NAGENDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS.
5. SMT. MAREMMA W/O. YALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
THE APPELLANT NO. 2 TO 4 ARE MINORS,
REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL
Digitally signed
by JAGADISH T R GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT. HULIGAMMA,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF I.E, APPELLANT NO.1,
KARNATAKA ALL ARE R/O. CHANAKANUR VILLAGE,
SIRUGUPPA TALUK,
BALLARI DISTRICT-583101.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. SOUBHAGYA S. VAKKUND, FOR
SRI. Y. LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. TAMARAPALLI LOKESWARA RAO,
S/O. TAMARAPALLI SHYAMASUNDRA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
DRIVER OF THE CRANE BEARING
NO. KA-34/M-9533,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4906
MFA No. 100505 of 2021
R/O. SANAKATURU, BADA KATURU POST,
GURANDI POLICE STATION LIMITS,
GAJAPATI DISTRICT ORISSA,
AND ALSO R/O. CARE OF HOUSE NO. 42,
WARD NO.2, K. VEERAPURA VILLAGE,
KAREKAL POST, BALLARI TALUK
AND DISTRICT-583101.
2. M. P. VEERANA GOUDA
S/O. M. P. NAGANAGOWDA,
OWNER OF THE CRANE BEARING
NO. KA-34/M-9533,
R/O. HOUSE NO.42, WARD NO.2,
K. VEERAPURA VILLAGE, KAREKAL POST,
BALLARI TALUK AND DISTRICT-583101.
3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD,
2ND FLOOR, GSR TOWERS,
T. S. NO.12/2A/146 A AND B,
OPP: PETROL BUNK, MAIN ROAD,
PARVATHINAGAR, BALLARI-583101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A. G. JADHAV, ADVOCATE FOR R3,
NOTICE TO R1 & R2 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRYAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY
MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 6.9.2019 PASSED
BY THE MACT-11 AND ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BALLARI
SITTING AT SIRUGUPPA, IN MVC NO.791/2018 BY ENHANCING THE
COMPENSTION FROM RS.11,50,000/- TO 26,50,000/- TO THE
APPELLATNS AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS AS THIS
HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE
INTERST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4906
MFA No. 100505 of 2021
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 by the claimants seeking
enhancement of compensation awarded under judgment &
award dated 06.09.2019 passed in MVC No.791/2018 by the
learned Member, MACT-11 and Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ballari
sitting at Siruguppa (for short, 'Tribunal').
3. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that on
3.4.2018, one Nagendrappa was proceeding by walk near
Siruguppa Bus stand and while crossing the road towards
Ballari side, at that time, respondent No.1 being driver of crane
vehicle bearing registration No.KA-34/M-9533 came from
Gandhi Circle, Siruguppa with great speed, rash and negligent
manner and dashed to Nagendrappa, due to which, he fell
down and sustained grievous injuries to all over body and
succumbed to those injuries. It is averred that the deceased
Nagendrappa was aged about 36 years as on the date of the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4906
accident, was working as Mason and earning Rs.600/- per day.
Thus, the claimants filed claim petition seeking compensation.
4. Before the Tribunal, Respondent No.3/Insurance
Company contested the proceedings by filing statement of
objections and denied the averments made in the claim
petition. It is further contended that the driver of the offending
vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license as on
the date of the accident. Hence, sought for dismissal of the
claim petition.
5. During trial, claimant No.1, wife of the deceased
Nagendrappa, examined herself as PW1 and got marked the
documents as Ex.P1 to P23. The respondents did not examine
any witness, but marked insurance policy as Ex.R1 with
consent. The Tribunal on appreciation of entire material
available on record, allowed the claim petition in part awarding
total compensation of Rs.11,50,000/- with interest at 9% per
annum from the date of petition till realization. The claimants
being aggrieved by quantum of compensation, are before this
Court in this appeal.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4906
6. Learned counsel Smt. Soubhagya Vakkund
appearing for the appellants/claimants would submit that the
Tribunal committed an error in assessing the income of the
deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month, which is on the lower side,
as the deceased was doing masonry work and earning Rs.600/-
per day. She would submit that no compensation has been
awarded by the Tribunal under the head of loss of future
prospects of the deceased, which the claimants would be
entitled to 40% of the assessed income of the deceased in
terms of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National
Insurance Company Limited Vs.Pranay Sethi & Others1.
She further submits that the claimants are also entitled to 10%
escalation on the compensation amount under the conventional
heads and also loss of consortium. Thus, she prays for allowing
the appeal.
7. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.A.G.Jadhav for
respondent No.3/Insurance Company supporting the impugned
judgment and award of the Tribunal would submit that in the
absence of cogent and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has
rightly assessed monthly income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/-,
2017(16) SCC 680
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4906
which is just and proper and needs no interference. He further
submits that award of compensation by the Tribunal on all
heads is just and proper, does not call for interference. Thus,
he prays for dismissal of the appeal.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the appeal papers, the only point that would
arise of consideration in this appeal is, whether the appellants
would be entitled for enhanced compensation?
9. Answer to the above point would be in the
'affirmative' for the following reasons:
10. The parties to the proceedings do not dispute the
occurrence of the road accident on 3.4.2018 resulting in death
of Nagendrappa. The contention of learned counsel for the
appellants is that the Tribunal committed an error in assessing
the income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month, as the
deceased was doing masonry work and earning Rs.18,000/- per
month. No document is placed on record by the claimants to
substantiate the claim of income of the deceased. Therefore, it
would be just and appropriate to assess income of the
deceased notionally, taking note of income chart prepared by
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4906
the KSLSA. As per the chart, the notional income for the year
2018 is Rs.11,750/- per month. Hence, taking note of the
same, this Court assesses notional income of the deceased at
Rs.11,750/- per month. Further, the Tribunal committed an
error in not awarding compensation under the head of loss of
future prospects. In terms of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Pranay Sethi referred supra, wherever the
deceased is aged below 40 years, the claimants would be
entitled for addition of 40% of the assessed income towards
loss of future prospects of the deceased. There is no dispute
with regard to age of the deceased as 36 years, deduction of
1/4th towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, as
there are five dependents and proper multiplier of 15. Thus, the
claimants would be entitled for modified compensation on the
head of loss of dependency at Rs.22,20,750/- (Rs.11,750 +
40% x 12 x 15 x 3/4).
11. The Tribunal also committed an error in awarding
Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.10,000/- towards
funeral expenses, which are on the lower side. In light of
decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case referred
supra, the claimants would be entitled to Rs.16,500/- towards
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4906
loss of estate and Rs.16,500/- towards funeral expenses
including 10% escalation. In terms of decision of Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Nanu Ram & Others2, each of the
appellants/claimants would be entitled to Rs.44,000/- under
the head of loss of consortium including 10% escalation.
12. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to modified
compensation on the following heads:
Particulars Amount
(in Rs.)
Loss of dependency 22,20,750/-
Loss of estate 16,500/-
Funeral expenses 16,500/-
Loss of consortium 2,20,000/-
Total 24,73,750/-
13. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to total
compensation of Rs.24,73,750/- as against Rs.11,50,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal.
14. It is noticed that this Court vide order dated
9.11.2023, while condoning the delay of 309 days in filing the
appeal, made an observation that the appellants/claimants
2018 ACJ 2782
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4906
would not be entitled for interest for the delayed period, in case
if they succeed in the appeal. Hence, the claimants would not
be entitled for the interest on the enhanced compensation for
the delayed period.
15. 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
claimants would be entitled to total
compensation of Rs.24,73,750/- as against
Rs.11,50,000/- 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/Insurer shall deposit the
enhanced compensation amount with accrued
interest before the Tribunal within a period of
six weeks from the date of receipt of certified
copy of this judgment.
e) Needless to say that the claimants would not be
entitled to interest on the enhanced
compensation amount for the aforesaid delayed
period. Registry to take note of the same while
drawing award.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4906
f) The apportionment, deposit and disbursement
of enhanced compensation shall be made as per
award of the Tribunal.
g) Draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
JTR
