Karnataka High Court
Smt. Bharathi D vs Rivigo Service Pvt., Ltd on 6 March, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:9623-DB
MFA No. 8025/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH 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.8025/2023 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. BHARATHI .D
W/O. LATE KARIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
2. KUM K. LAVANYA
D/O. LATE KARIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS,
3. YASHSWANTH
S/O. LATE KARIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 09 YEARS,
4. KUM ANUSHREE
Digitally signed D/O. LATE KARIYAPPA,
by PRABHU AGED ABOUT 07 YEARS,
KUMARA
NAIKA
Location: High APPELLANTS 2 TO 4 ARE
Court of MINORS REPRESENTED BY
Karnataka
THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN
MOTHER, 1ST APPELLANT,
SMT. BHARATHI .D
5. SMT. KENCHAMMA
W/O. LATE DURUGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
COOLIE,
ALL ARE R/O. AAYATHOLU VILLAGE,
CHITRADURGA TALUK & DISTRICT - 577 502. ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI N.K. SIDDESWARA, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:9623-DB
MFA No. 8025/2023
AND:
1. RIVIGO SERVICE PVT. LTD.,
PLOT NO.90, SECTOR-44,
GURGAON, HARIYANA STATE - 122 001
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
S.V.R. COMPLEX, 2ND FLOOR,
MADIVALA - 89
HOSUR ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 068
REPRESENTED BY ITS
DIVISIONAL MANAGER. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
V/O. DATED 20/12/2023 NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 30.03.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO.866/2021 ON THE FILE OF
THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT-III,
CHITRADURGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR
ORDERS, THIS DAY, K.S.MUDAGAL J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Though the appeal is listed for admission, with the
consent of both sides, the same is taken up for final disposal.
2. Heard.
3. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
to the appellants/claimants by the impugned award in MVC
No.866/2021 is just is the question involved in this case.
NC: 2024:KHC:9623-DB
4. The appellants were claimant Nos.1 to 5 and
respondents were respondent Nos.1 and 2 before the Tribunal.
For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to
henceforth as per their ranks before the Tribunal.
5. Claimant No.1 is the wife, claimant Nos.2 to 4 are
the minor children and claimant No.5 is the mother of the
deceased Kariyappa. On 14.05.2021 at 3.00 p.m. when
Kariyappa was doing road maintenance work near Don BOSCO
School, NH-48 Road, Chitradurga Town, within the limits of
Chitradurga Traffic Police Station, lorry bearing registration
No.HR-55-AD-8875 hit him and caused grievous injuries. Victim
succumbed to the injuries on the spot itself.
6. Regarding the accident, Chitradurga traffic police
registered the FIR in Crime No.39/2021 as per Ex.P.1 against
the driver of the lorry. On investigation, the said police filed
charge-sheet as per Ex.P.9 against the driver of the lorry for
the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A
of IPC read with Section 187 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act,
1988. At the relevant time, respondent Nos.1 and 2 were the
registered owner and insurer of the said lorry.
NC: 2024:KHC:9623-DB
7. The claimants filed MVC No.866/2021 before the
Principal Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT-III,
Chitradurga claiming compensation of Rs.66,00,000/- from the
respondents alleging that accident occurred due to the
negligence of driver of lorry, the deceased was earning
Rs.40,000/- per month and they were dependent on his income
and due to his death, they suffered damages.
8. Respondent No.2-insurer alone contested the
matter denying the actionable negligence on the part of the
driver of the lorry, age, income, occupation of the deceased
and its liability to pay the compensation.
9. Before the Tribunal, in support of the claim,
claimant No.1 was examined as PW.1. On behalf of the
claimants, Exs.P1 to P15 were marked. The respondents did
not lead any evidence.
10. The Tribunal, after recording the evidence and on
hearing the parties, by the impugned award held that the
accident occurred due to the actionable negligence on the part
of the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.HR-55-AD-
NC: 2024:KHC:9623-DB
8875. The Tribunal relying on the post mortem report at Ex.P.8
considered the age of the deceased as 32 years, notionally
assessed his income at Rs.12,000/- per month, added 40% to
the income of the deceased by way of future prospects,
deducted 1/4th of his income towards personal expenses,
applied '16' multiplier and awarded compensation of
Rs.24,19,200/- on the head of loss of dependency.
11. The Tribunal in all awarded compensation of
Rs.26,499,200/- on different heads as per the table below:
Sl. Compensation Compensation
NO. Heads Amount(Rs.)
1 Loss of dependency 24,19,200
2 Funeral expenses 15,000
3 Loss of estate 15,000
4 Loss of consortium 2,00,000
TOTAL 26,49,200
12. Questioning the findings of the Tribunal on
actionable negligence, quantum of compensation, the insurer
has not preferred any appeal. The claimants questioned the
award on the ground that the compensation awarded is not just
and reasonable one.
NC: 2024:KHC:9623-DB
13. As per Ex.P.8, at the time of the accident, the
deceased was aged about 32 years. The Tribunal has applied
'16' multiplier in accordance with the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport
Corporation1. But there was no proof of actual income of the
deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in considering
the income notionally. However, considering the age of the
deceased, his occupation, cost of living and wages prevailing
during the relevant period, the Tribunal should have considered
the income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per month.
14. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi2
and having regard to the age of the deceased, 40% has to be
super added to the income of the deceased by way of future
prospects, which comes to Rs.21,000/- (15,000 + 40%). As
the deceased had five dependents, as per the judgment of
Sarla Verma's case referred to supra, 1/4th of his income has
to be deducted towards his personal expenses. Therefore, the
notional income comes to Rs.15,750/- (21,000 - 5,250). The
AIR 2009 SC 3104
AIR 2017 SC 5157
NC: 2024:KHC:9623-DB
compensation payable under the head loss of dependency is
Rs.30,24,000/- (15,750 x 12 x 16).
15. Claimants are wife, minor children and mother of
the deceased. As per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Pranay Sethi's case referred to supra, they are entitled to
compensation of Rs.40,000/- each with escalation at 10% on
the head of loss of consortium. On the conventional heads of
loss of estate and funeral expenses, as per the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's case referred to
supra, claimants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- on each head with
escalation of 10%, which comes to Rs.33,000/- (16,500 +
16,500). Therefore, the just compensation payable is as
follows:
Sl. Particulars Compensation
No. Amount in Rs.
1. Loss of dependency 30,24,000
2. Loss of consortium 2,20,000
3. Loss of estate 16,500
4. Funeral expenses and 16,500
transportation charges
TOTAL 32,77,000
Less: Awarded by the 26,49,200
Tribunal
Enhanced 6,27,800
Compensation
NC: 2024:KHC:9623-DB
16. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal deserves to
be allowed-in-part. Hence, the following:
ORDER
i) Appeal is allowed-in-part.
ii) The appellants/claimants are awarded enhanced
compensation of Rs.6,27,800/- over and above the
compensation awarded under the impugned award,
with interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date of
the petition till its realization excluding the delayed
period of 121 days.
iii) Respondent No.2 - the Insurer shall deposit the
compensation amount before the Tribunal within
four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this
order.
iv) The order of the Tribunal with regard to
apportionment and investment is maintained.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
MBM
