Karnataka High Court
Smt. Narasamma S/O Late Ramanjeneyalu vs Smt. Sunitha W/O K. Thippaiah on 6 March, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4914
MFA No. 103948 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103948 OF 2018 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. NARASAMMA S/O. LATE RAMANJENEYALU,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
2. R. DEVARAJ S/O. LATE RAMANJENEYALU,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
BOTH ARE R/O. BEECHINAGAR, MARUTI NILAY,
1ST CROSS LEFT, KAPPAGAL ROAD,
GANDHI NAGAR, BALLARI-583101.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. SOUBHAGYA VAKKUND, ADV. FOR
SRI. Y. LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, AND SMT. Y. MALATHI REDDY,
AND SMT. SUMA YALGUR, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. SMT. SUNITHA W/O. K. THIPPAIAH,
AGE: MAJOR, OWNER OF TATA SUMO,
BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KA-35/M-2604,
R/O. BUJANG NAGAR, SANDUR TALUK,
BALLARI DISTRICT-583101.
Digitally signed
by JAGADISH T
R 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
Location: HIGH UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
COURT OF RAMAKRISHNA COMPLEX, 1ST FLOOR,
KARNATAKA K. C. ROAD, BALLARI-583101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N. R. KUPPELUR, ADV. FOR R2,
NOTICE TO R1 SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW
THE APPEAL BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
5.5.2008 PASSED BY THE BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-XI, AT BALLARI, IN MVC NO.360/2006 BY ENHANCING
THE COMPENSATION AND AWARDING A TOTAL COMPENSATION OF
RS.15,10,000/- TO THE APPELLANT AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER
OR ORDERS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE & EQUITY.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4914
MFA No. 103948 of 2018
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the legal heirs of the deceaed
Sri.R Narasimha seeking for enhancement of the
compensation. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award
dated 05.05.2008 passed in MVC No.360/2006 on the file of
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-XI, Bellary (for short,
'Tribunal').
2. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are
that, on 16.01.2006 at about 4.45 a.m., the deceased
Sri.R Narasimha met with a road accident and sustained
grievous injuries and later he succumbed to those injuries. It
is averred that the deceased was hale and healthy and
working in Srirama Investments, Bellary and drawing salary
of Rs.5,000/- per month. Due to sudden death of deceased
Sri.R Narasimha, the appellants, who are mother and brother
lost the deceased, who was the only earning member in the
family. Hence, filed claim petition seeking for compensation.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4914
3. The respondent entered appearance before the
Tribunal and filed statement of objections denying the age,
income and avocation of the deceased and sought for
dismissal of the claim petition.
4. The appellant examined herself as PW1 and got
marked documents as Exs.P1 to P4. The respondent adduced
the evidence by examining RW1 and got marked two
documents as Exs.R1 and R2.
5. The Tribunal by common judgment awarded total
compensation of Rs.4,10,000/- along with interest at the
rate of 6% per annum in MVC No.360/2006. Being aggrieved
by the quantum of compensation as well as saddling of
liability on the owner of the vehicle, the present appeal is
filed by the legal heirs of the deceased.
6. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel
for the appellants/claimants and the respondent
No.2/Insurance Company.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4914
7. Smt.Soubhagya Vakkund, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant submits that the Tribunal
committed grave error in saddling the liability on the
respondent No.1/owner of the vehicle. She placed on record
the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench in MFA
No.20292/2008 and connected appeals disposed off on
05-2-2016 and submits that the, Co-ordinate Bench has
shifted the liability on the Insurance Company and the
accident arising in the present case as well as in the
aforesaid appeals are one and the same. Hence, the liability
is required to be shifted on the respondent No.2/Insurance
Company. She further argues that the Tribunal has
committed an error in not awarding any compensation under
the head of loss of future prospects of the deceased and also
committed an error in applying multiplier. She also argues
that the award of compensation by the Tribunal under the
head of loss of consortium and conventional head is also at
lower side. Hence, she seeks to enhance the same.
8. Per contra, Sri.N R. Kuppelur, learned counsel for
the respondent No.4 supports the impugned judgment and
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4914
award of the Tribunal and submits that the Tribunal has
committed an error in assessing the income of the deceased
at Rs.5,000/-. He further argues that the Tribunal has
committed grave error in applying the multiplier. He fairly
submits that the Co-ordinate Bench in MFA No.20292/2008
has shifted the liability on the Insurance Company. He also
submits that the respondent No.2/Insurance Company has
filed MFA No.25342/2012 challenging the liability fixed on it
arising out of the same accident by the Tribunal and the said
appeal came to be dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench vide
order dated 05-02-2016. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the
appeal.
9. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel
for the appellants/claimants and the learned counsel for the
respondent/Insurance Company and perused the material
available on record. The only points that would arise for
consideration in this appeal are:
a) Whether the respondent No.1/owner of the vehicle is
liable to pay the compensation?
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4914
b) Whether the appellants/claimants are entitled for the
enhanced compensation?
10. The answer to the above points is in the 'negative'
and 'affirmative' for the following reason.
11. The parties to the proceeding do not dispute that
in a road accident dated 16.01.2006, the appellant No.1
sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to those injuries.
It is also not in dispute that the deceased was aged about 26
years at the time of accident. This Court taking note of the
judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench in MFA No.20292/2008
disposed off on 05.02.2016 and MFA No.25342/2012
disposed off on 05.02.2016 hold that the respondent
No.2/Insurance Company is liable to pay the entire
compensation and accordingly, the liability is shifted on it.
12. The Tribunal has committed grave error in assessing
the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- for the purpose of
determination of compensation. While re-determining the
compensation this Court is of the considered view that, in
the absence of any evidence available on record it would be
just and proper to reassess the income of the deceased at
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4914
Rs.3750/- placing reliance on the notional income chart
prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority.
The Tribunal has committed grave error in not awarding any
compensation under the head of loss of future prospects.
Keeping in mind law lay down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v.
Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680
and taking note of the fact that the deceased was aged
about 26 years. The appellants are entitled to additional 40%
of the assessed income of the deceased under the head of
loss of future prospects. The deceased was aged about 26
years and the proper multiplier would be 17 as against 13
applied by the Tribunal. Thus, the claimants would be
entitled to modified compensation on the head of loss of
dependency.
Rs.3,750 + 40% - 50% x 12 x 17 = Rs.5,35,500/-
13. The appellants are entitled Rs.40,000/- each under
the head of loss of consortium and Rs.30,000/- under the
head of loss of estate, Transportation of dead body and
Funeral expenses.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4914
14. Thus, the appellants/claimants shall be entitled to
modified compensation under the following heads:
Sl. Particulars Amount
No.
1 Loss of dependency Rs.5,35,500/-
2 Loss of estate, transportation of dead body Rs. 30,000/-
& funeral expenses
3 Loss of consortium Rs. 80,000/-
Total Rs.6,45,500/-
15. Thus, the claimants shall be entitled to total
compensation of Rs.6,45,500/- as against Rs.4,10,000
awarded by the Tribunal.
16. It is noticed that this Court vide order dated
28.02.2024, while condoning the delay of 3740 days in filing
the appeal, made an observation that the
appellants/claimants would not be entitled for interest for the
delayed period, in case if he succeeds in the appeal. Hence,
the claimant would not be entitled for the interest on the
enhanced compensation for the delayed period. Accordingly,
registry to take note and draw the decree excluding 3740
days delay from calculating interest.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4914
17. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
a) Appeal is allowed in part.
b) The impugned judgment and award
of the Tribunal is modified to an extent
that the appellants/claimants would be
entitled to total compensation of
Rs.6,45,500/- as against Rs.4,10,000/-
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 Insurance Company shall deposit
the enhanced compensation amount with
accrued interest before the Tribunal
within a period of six weeks from today.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4914
e) On such deposit, the same shall be
released in favour of the
appellants/claimants.
f) Needless to say that the
appellants/claimants shall not be entitled
to any interest on the enhanced
compensation for the delayed period.
Registry to take note of the same while
drawing award.
g) Draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PMP
