Karnataka High Court
Smt. Sumitra W/O Maraling @ ... vs Mr. Vithal Yamanappa Sannakki on 7 March, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:5001
MFA No. 102566 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102566 OF 2017 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SUMITRA
W/O. MARALING
@ MARALINGAPPA MANAPPAGOL,
AGE: 41 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK.
2. MRS. REKHA
D/O. MARALING
@ MARALINGAPPA MANAPPAGOL,
AGE: 19 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT.
3. MASTER MAHANTESH
Digitally signed
by JAGADISH T S/O. MARALING
R @ MARALINGAPPA MANAPPAGOL,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AGE: 15 YEARS,
KARNATAKA
OCC: STUDENT,
SINCE APPELLANT NO.3 BEING
MINOR REPRESENTED BY M/G
NATURAL MOTHER I.E,
APPELLANT NO.1,
ALL ARE R/O. PARAMESHWAR
MARADI, SHINDIKURBET,
TQ: GOKAK-591306,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. HARISH S. MAIGUR, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:5001
MFA No. 102566 of 2017
AND:
1. MR. VITHAL YAMANAPPA SANNAKKI,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HARIJAN GALLI,
SHINDIKURBET,
TQ: GOKAK-591306,
IST: BELAGAVI.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
BHARATI AXA GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,
THROUGH ITS BRANCH OFFICER,
MAIN ROAD, TILAKWADI,
BELAGAVI-590006.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NAGARAJ C. KOLLOORI, ADV. FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R2 SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION
BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED IN M.V.C
NO.2383/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AND M.A.C.T. VI, BELAGAVI, DATED 15/04/2017
BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:5001
MFA No. 102566 of 2017
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants challenging
the judgment and award dated 15.04.2017 passed in MVC
No.2383/2016 on the file of V Addl. District and Sessions Judge
and MACT-VI, Belagavi.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that on
17.07.2016 one deceased Maraling Manappagol was returning
to his house on Gokak-Ghataprabha road. When he came near
Shindikurubet, at about 5.15 a.m., a motorcycle bearing
Registration No.KA-49-R-6008, ridden by its rider came in high
speed, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the
deceased. Due to the said impact, the deceased sustained
grievous injuries later he succumbed to those injuries at
Government Hospital, Gokak. It is averred that the deceased
was aged about 45 years at the time of accident and was an
agriculturist and getting income of Rs.16,000/- per month. It is
further averred that the accident has caused to due to the rash
and negligence of the rider and sought compensation before
the Tribunal.
3. The respondent entered appearance before the
Tribunal and filed statement of objections denying the mode of
NC: 2024:KHC-D:5001
accident, age, occupation, income and avocation of the
deceased and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
4. During the trial, the appellant No.1 examined
herself as PW1 got marked 10 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P10.
The respondents have not adduced any evidence. The Tribunal
after considering the evidence available on record has awarded
total compensation of Rs.14,45,000/- along with interest at the
rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of
realization. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation,
the appellants/claimants have filed this present appeal seeking
for enhancement of compensation.
5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for
the appellants/claimants and the learned counsel for the
respondent No.2/Insurance Company.
6. Sri.Harish S. Maigur, learned counsel appearing for
the appellants/claimants submit that the Tribunal has
committed grave error in assessing the income of the deceased
at Rs.7,000/- per month, which is contrary to the evidence
available on record. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal by
enhancing the compensation.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:5001
7. Per contra, Sri.Nagaraj C. Kollori, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company
supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal
and submits that the appellants/claimants have not placed any
evidence to substantiate the income of the deceased. He
further argues that the Tribunal has committed grave error in
awarding 30% under the head of loss of future prospects of the
deceased. The deceased was aged about 45 years at the time
of accident hence, it would be appropriate to award 25% of the
assessed income of the deceased under the head of loss of
future prospects of the deceased. Hence, he prays to dismiss
the appeal.
8. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel
representing the respective parties and perused the material
available on record. The only point that would arise for
consideration in this appeal is:
a) Whether the appellants/claimants are entitled for
the enhanced compensation?
NC: 2024:KHC-D:5001
9. The answer to the above point is in the 'affirmative'
for the following reasons:
10. It is not in dispute that the deceased Maraling
Manappagol has met with an accident on 17.07.2016 and
succumbed to the injuries suffered by him in the said accident.
It is also not in dispute that the vehicle involved in the accident
was indemnified by the respondent No.2/Insurance Company.
The Tribunal while assessing the compensation has assessed
the income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month.
Admittedly, the appellants have not placed any evidence before
the Tribunal to substantiate the income. This Court taking note
of the notional income chart prepared by the Karnataka State
Legal Services Authority, assessed the income of the deceased
at Rs.8,750/- per month for the purpose of determination of
compensation. There is no dispute with regard to age of the
deceased as 45 years and appropriate multiplier of 14. This
Court keeping in mind the enunciation of law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance
Company vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16
SCC 680, is of the considered view that the appellants are
entitled addition of 25% of the assessed income under the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:5001
head of loss of future prospects of the deceased as against
30% awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, the appellants/claimants
would be entitled to modified compensation on the head of loss
of dependency:
Rs.8,750 + 25% x 12 x 14 x 2/3 = Rs.12,25,000/-
11. The claimants would be entitled to compensation on
the head of loss of dependency at Rs.12,25,000/- as against
Rs.10,19,200/- awarded by the Tribunal. Insofar as award of
compensation by the Tribunal on the other heads is unaltered,
as the insurance company has not challenged the same and
they have satisfied the award. Hence, no finding is recorded
insofar as award of compensation on the other heads. Thus,
the claimants would be entitled to enhanced compensation of
Rs.2,05,800/- (Rs.12,25,000 - Rs.10,19,200/-).
12. The appellants/claimants are entitled for interest at
the rate of 6% per annum of the enhanced compensation.
13. For the aforementioned reasons, I pass the
following:
NC: 2024:KHC-D:5001
ORDER
a) Appeal is allowed in part.
b) The impugned judgment and award passed
by the Tribunal to an extent that the
appellants/claimants would be entitled to
total compensation of Rs.12,25,000/- as
against Rs.14,45,000/- 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/Insurance Company shall
deposit the enhanced compensation amount
along with accrued interest before the
Tribunal within a period of six weeks from
the date of receipt of certified copy of this
judgment.
e) On such deposit, the same shall be released
in favour of the appellant No.1/wife of the
deceased.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:5001
f) Draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PMP
