Karnataka High Court
Gangawwa And Ors vs Mallappa And Anr on 6 March, 2024
Author: H.T.Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T.Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1983-DB
MFA No.201694 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201694 OF 2022 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. GANGAWWA
S/O TIPPANNA CHYAPI @ PUJARI
AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: NIL
2. KANAKAVVA
W/O REVANASIDDA CHYAPI @ PUJARI
AGE: 44 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK
3. BHIRAPPA
S/O REVANASIDDA CHYAPI @ PUJARI
Digitally signed by
VARSHA N AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: NIL
RASALKAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
4. BASAPPA
S/O REVANASIDDA CHYAPI @ PUJARI
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: NIL
5. TIPPANNA
S/O REVANASIDDA CHYAPI @ PUJARI
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: NIL
ALL ARE R/O KALGURKI
TALUK: BASAVANA BAGEWADI
DISTRICT: VIJAYAPURA - 586 121.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI SANGANAGOUDA V. BIRADAR, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1983-DB
MFA No.201694 of 2022
AND:
1. MALLAPPA
S/O SANGAPPA HACHADAD
AGE: 42 YEARS
OCC: BUSINESS
R/O SAVANALLI,
TQ: & DIST. VIJAYAPURA - 586 101.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER
NEW INDIA INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED
HANAMSHETTY BUILDING
VIJAYAPURA - 586 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
V/O. DATED 17.10.2022 NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND
ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AS CLAIMED IN THE CLAIM
PETITION BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
02.03.2021 PASSED BY THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER M.A.C.T.-VI, AT VIJAYAPURA IN
M.V.C.NO.51/2019, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY
H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1983-DB
MFA No.201694 of 2022
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for
short) has been filed by the claimants being aggrieved by
the judgment and award dated 02.03.2021 passed by the
I-Additional Senior Civil Judge and Member, MACT-VI at
Vijayapura, in MVC No.51/2019.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly
stated are that on 03.08.2018, at about 5.00 pm., when
the deceased Revansidda was standing behind the tractor
/trailer bearing registration No.KA-28/TA-3696-3697 and
the driver was about to unload the murum, he suddenly
took the vehicle in reverse direction without noticing
Revansidda standing behind and dashed to him and
caused the accident. Due to the said accident, the
deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to
the injuries.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1983-DB
3. The claimants being legal representatives of
deceased filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act
seeking compensation for the death of the deceased along
with interest.
4. On service of summons, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2
have appeared through their respective counsel and filed
separate written statement denying the averments made
in the claim petition.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the
Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded
the evidence. The claimants, in order to prove the case,
examined claimant No.2 as PW-1 and another witness as
PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P6.
On behalf of respondents, one document was marked as
Ex.R1. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment,
inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of
rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its
driver, as a result of which, the deceased sustained
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1983-DB
injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The Tribunal
further held that the claimants are entitled to a
compensation of Rs.11,23,000/- along with interest at the
rate of 6% p.a. and held that both the respondents are
jointly and severally liable to pay compensation and
directed the respondent No.2 to indemnify the respondent
No.1 and directed the respondent No.2 to deposit the
compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved
of awarding lesser compensation, the claimants are before
this Court.
6. Learned counsel for the claimants has raised the
following contentions:
a) Firstly, the claimants claim that the deceased was
aged about 48 years at the time of the accident and he
was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by doing aricultue
work. But the Tribunal is not justified in taking the
monthly income of the deceased as merely as Rs.9,000/-
which is on the lower side.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1983-DB
b) Secondly, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.
LTD. -v- PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS [AIR 2017 SC
5157], 25% of the income of the deceased has to be
added for future prospects. The same has not been
considered by the Tribunal.
c) Thirdly, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO.
LTD. -V- NANU RAM [2018 ACJ 2782], each of the
claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/-
under the head of 'loss of love and affection and
consortium'.
d) Lastly, considering the age and avocation of the
deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, he prays for allowing
the appeal.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
Insurance Company has raised the following counter-
contentions:
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1983-DB
a) Firstly, even though the claimants claim that the
deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, they have
not produced any document to establish the same.
Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of
the deceased notionally at Rs.9,000/- per month.
b) Secondly, since the claimants have not established
the income of the deceased, they are not entitled for
compensation towards 'future prospects'.
c) Thirdly, since the claimants are major sons, they are
not dependent on the income of the deceased. The
Tribunal has erred in deducting 1/4th of the income of the
deceased for personal expenses.
d) Lastly, on appreciation of oral and documentary
evidence and considering the age and avocation of the
deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is just and reasonable. Hence, he prays for
dismissal of the appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1983-DB
9. It is not in dispute that Revansidda died in the road
traffic accident occurred on 03.08.2018 due to rash and
negligent driving of the offending tractor/trailer by its
driver.
10. Even though the claimants claim that deceased was
earning Rs.15,000/- per month they have not produced
any documents to prove the income of the deceased. In
the absence of proof of income, the notional income has to
be assessed. As per the guidelines issued by the
Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for the accident
taken place in the year 2018, the notional income of the
deceased has to be taken at Rs.11,750/- p.m. To the
aforesaid income, 25% has to be added on account of
future prospects in view of the law laid down by the
Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in 'PRANAY
SETHI' (supra). Thus, the monthly income comes to
Rs.14,687/-. The Tribunal has rightly deducted ¼th of the
income of the deceased for personal expenses. The
deceased was aged about 48 years at the time of the
accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is '13'.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1983-DB
Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation of
Rs.17,18,379/- (Rs.14687*12*13*3/4) on account of 'loss
of dependency'.
11. In addition, the claimants are entitled to
compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of 'loss of estate'
and compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of 'funeral
expenses'.
12. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in
the case of 'MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE' (supra),
claimant No.1, mother of the deceased is entitled for
compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of 'loss of
filial consortium', claimant No.2 is entitled for
compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of 'loss of
spousal consortium' and claimant Nos.3 to 5, children of
the deceased are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/-
each under the head of 'loss of parental consortium'.
13. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following
compensation:
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1983-DB
Compensation under Amount in
different Heads (Rs.)
Loss of dependency 17,18,379
Funeral expenses 15,000
Loss of estate 15,000
Loss of spousal 40,000
consortium
Loss of Parental 120,000
consortium
Loss of Filial consortium 40,000
Total 19,48,379
14. In the result, the following order is passed:
ORDER
a) The appeal is allowed in part.
b) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.
c) The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of
Rs.19,48,379/- as against Rs.11,23,000/- awarded by
the Tribunal.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1983-DB
d) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
compensation amount along with interest at 6%p.a. from
the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of
realization, within a period of six weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of this judgment.
e) The apportionment, deposit and release of amount
shall be made in terms of the award of the Tribunal.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
VNR
Ct;Vk
