Karnataka High Court
Sridevi And Ors vs Nijalingappa And Anr on 29 May, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3390
MFA No. 202077 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.202077 OF 2019 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SRIDEVI W/O LATE SANJEEV KUMAR HADPAD
AGE: 34 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
2. BABY POOJA D/O LATE SANJEEV KUMAR HADPAD
AGE: 13 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT
MINOR U/G OF HER MOTHER
SMT. SRIDEVI W/O SANJEEV KUMAR HADPAD,
APPELLANT NO. 1.
3. SHIVKUMAR S/O LATE SANJEEV KUMAR HADPAD
AGE: 10 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
MINOR U/G OF HER MOTHER
Digitally signed by SMT. SRIDEVI W/O SANJEEV KUMAR HADPAD,
KHAJAAMEEN L
MALAGHAN APPELLANT NO. 1.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 4. KAMALMMA W/O LATE HANMANTH HADPAD
AGE: 62 YEARS OCC: HOUSE HOLD,
ALL ARE R/O WALLEPUR VILLAGE,
TQ. AURAD DIST. BIDAR,
NOW RESIDING AT SHIVNAGAR NORTH,
BIDAR-585401
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI BASAVARAJ R. MATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3390
MFA No. 202077 of 2019
1. NIJALINGAPPA S/O SURESH
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O VILLAGE CHIMKOD,
TQ. & DIST. BIDAR-585401.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER
M/S IFFCO-TOKIO
GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,
SHOP NO.200, 201 & 202 HAVAPA COMPLEX,
OPPOSITE TVS SHOW ROOM, SHIVNAGAR SOUTH,
BIDAR-585401
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
VIDE ORDER DATED 18.03.2024 NOTICE TO R1 IS
DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF M.V.
ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND MODIFY THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.12.2018
PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
ADDITIONAL MACT, BIDAR IN MVC.NO.315/2017.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is by the claimants in MVC.No.315/2017
on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT,
Bidar (hereinafter for short referred to as 'Tribunal')
against judgment and award passed in the said case dated
01.12.2018, claiming for enhancement of compensation.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3390
02. The parties will be referred to as per their ranks
before the Tribunal for sake of convenience.
03. Brief facts of the case of the claimants are that
on 21.11.2016 the deceased - Sanjeevkumar along with
his brother was going towards Vilaspur on Bidar - Bhalki
road at 08.00 p.m. by walk; At Chondi cross, he met with
an accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver
of the auto-rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-38-4897. As a
result of impact, the deceased - Sanjeevkumar sustained
grievous fatal injuries and while undergoing treatment, he
succumbed to the injuries.
04. It is further case of the claimants that the
deceased - Sanjeevkumar was aged about 35 years and
he was running a barber shop at Bidar and earning
Rs.15,000/- per month. The claimants are his wife,
children and mother and were depending upon the income
of the deceased - Sanjeevkumar. With these reasons, the
claimants prayed to award compensation of
Rs.23,30,000/-.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3390
05. The respondents No.1 and 2 have denied the
contentions taken in the claim petition. According to
respondent No.1 accident was taken place due to some
unknown vehicle. However, the auto-rickshaw was falsely
implicated in this case. With these reasons prayed to
dismiss the claim petition.
06. From the rival contentions of both the parties,
the Tribunal had framed the necessary issues for its
determination.
07. The claimants to prove their case have
examined PW.1 to PW.3 and got marked Ex.P.1 to
Ex.P.12. The respondent No.2 examined one witness as
RW.1 and got marked Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.2.
08. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties and
appreciating the evidence available on record had awarded
the following amount of compensation:-
Sl. Heads of Compensation Amount
No.
01. Loss of Dependency Rs.14,11,200/-
02. Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/-
03. Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/-
04. Loss of Consortium Rs.60,000/-
Total Rs.15,01,200/-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3390
09. I have heard the arguments of the learned
counsel for claimants and the respondent No.2 - insurance
company.
10. The learned counsel for the claimants submits
that the Tribunal did not accept the case of the claimants
that the deceased - Sanjeevkumar was earning
Rs.15,000/- per month, at least could have assessed the
income of the deceased - Sanjeevkumar at Rs.8,750/- as
per the schedule prepared by the Karnataka State Legal
Services Authority and awarded the compensation under
the head of loss of dependency. The learned counsel for
the claimants has submits that the compensation awarded
under other heads are also not in accordance with law and
as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs.
Pranay Shethi and others1. The Tribunal also did not
award just and reasonable amount of compensation under
the head of loss of consortium and love and affection. The
Tribunal together awarded the compensation of
(2017) 16 SCC 680
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3390
Rs.60,000/- instead of Rs.40,000/- to each of the
claimants as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited
vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and others 2.
Therefore, he prayed to enhance the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal.
11. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 -
insurance company seriously opposed the submissions of
the learned counsel for the claimants and submits that the
Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation of
amount. In the alternative he submits that in the event of
enhancement of the compensation, the claimants are not
entitled for interest on the enhanced amount for more
than 6% per annum.
12. The following point is emerges for my
determination:-
Whether the claimants are entitled for the
enhancement of compensation.?
(2018) 18 SCC 130
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3390
13. In this case there is no much dispute in respect
of other facts except assessment of income of the
deceased by the Tribunal as well as awarding the amount
of compensation under the head of loss of consortium.
Therefore, there is no need to consider other contentions
raised before the Tribunal.
14. It is true that there is no reliable evidence
regarding the income of the deceased - Sanjeevkumar.
Therefore, the notional income of the deceased -
Sanjeevkumar has to be assessed. The Tribunal has taken
the notional income of the deceased - Sanjeevkumar at
Rs.7,000/- per month. As per the schedule of income
determined by the Karnataka State Legal Services
Authority, the income of a person who met with an
accident during the year 2016 is considered as Rs.8,750/-
same could be applied to the facts of present case. 40% of
income has to be added towards future prospects.
Admittedly, age of the deceased - Sanjeevkumar is below
40 years and the multiplier applicable is 16. On the basis
of the said calculation, the amount of compensation under
the head of loss of dependency is to be recalculated.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3390
15. There are 04 dependents to the deceased -
Sanjeevkumar i.e., widow, two children and mother, each
of them are entitled for amount of compensation under the
head of loss of consortium as per the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General
Insurance Company Limited (supra). Accordingly,
following amount of compensation is recalculated /
awarded :-
Sl. Heads Compensation Compensation
No. Awarded by the Awarded by this
Tribunal Court
01. Loss of Dependency Rs.14,11,200/- Rs.17,64,000/-
(Rs.8,750/- + 40% -
1/4th x 12 x 16)
02. Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/-
03. Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- Ra.15,000/-
04. Loss of Consortium Rs.60,000/- Rs.1,60,000/-
(Rs.40,000/- x 4)
Total Rs.15,01,200/- Rs.19,54,000/-
16. The claimants are entitled for enhancement of
Rs.4,52,800/-.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3390
17. The Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of
9% per annum. However, submission of the learned
counsel for the respondent No.2 - insurance company is
acceptable considering the prevailing rate of interest given
by banks that interest shall be awarded at the rate of 6%
per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from
the date of petition till its realization.
18. It is not in dispute that the respondent No.1 is
the owner and the respondent No.2 is the insurer of the
offending vehicle. Therefore, the respondent No.2 is liable
to pay the said enhanced amount of compensation.
19. For the aforesaid discussion I answered the
above question accordingly and pass the following;
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed in part.
ii. The impugned judgment and award passed by the
Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Bidar in
MVC.No.315/2017 dated 01.12.2018 is modified.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3390
iii. The claimants are entitled for compensation of
Rs.19,54,000/- as against Rs.15,01,200/-
awarded by the Tribunal. The claimants are
entitled for enhancement of compensation of
Rs.4,52,800/- with interest on the enhanced
amount of compensation at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date of petition till its realization,
excluding the period of 199 days for the for the
delay in filing the appeal.
iv. The respondent No.2 - insurance company shall
deposit the said amount with interest within a
period of 08 weeks from the date of receipt of
copy of this order.
v. The order pertaining to apportionment, deposit
etc., passed by the Tribunal is not disturbed.
The registry is directed to send back the Trial Court
records.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KJJ
CT:PK
