Karnataka High Court
Smt Sunanda W/O Rajashekhar Angadi vs Husensab S/O Maibusab Hanagi on 30 May, 2024
Author: S G Pandit
Bench: S G Pandit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7222-DB
MFA No. 100273 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100273 OF 2023 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SUNANDA W/O. RAJASHEKHAR ANGADI,
AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
2. RAJASEHKHAR S/O. SHIVAPUTRAPPA ANGADI,
AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
3. SRUSTI D/O. RAJASHEKHAR ANGADI
AGE. 25 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
4. SOUNDARYA D/O. RAJASHEKHAR ANGADI
AGE. 27 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
5. SUDEEP S/O. RAJASHEKHAR ANGADI,
AGE. 16 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
(SINCE APPELLANT NO.5 IS MINOR REP.BY
M/G I.E. APPELLANT NO.1)
ALL ARE R/O. GADDANAKERI,
TQ. AND DIST. BAGALAKOTE-587102.
Digitally signed by - APPELLANTS
VINAYAKA B V (BY SRI SIDDAPPA SAJJAN, ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AND:
1. HUSENSAB S/O. MAIBUSAB HANAGI,
AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. OWNER OF THE OFFENDING
VEHICLE, R/O. SIDDRAMESHWAR BADAVANE,
GADDANAKERI, TQ. AND DIST. BAGALAKOTE-587102.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
R/O. MELLIGERI COMPLEX, BAGALAKOTE-587101.
- RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 SERVED)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7222-DB
MFA No. 100273 of 2023
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.03.2022 PASSED IN MVC
NO.124/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-III, BAGALAKOTE,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC.,
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR
FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, S G PANDIT, J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Though the appeal is listed for hearing on interlocutory
application, with consent of both the counsel, appeal is taken
up for final disposal.
2. The claimants/parents, sisters and brother of the
deceased are before this Court not satisfied with the quantum
of compensation awarded under the judgment and award dated
02.03.2022 passed in M.V.C. No. 124/2020 by the learned I
Addl. Sr. Civil Judge and MACT-III at Bagalakote (for short
'Tribunal') and praying for enhancement of compensation.
3. The claimants filed claim petition under Section 166 of
M.V. Act seeking compensation for the accidental death of
Kum.Sahana, daughter of first and second claimants in the
accident that occurred on 01.11.2019 at 6.30 p.m. when the
deceased was walking on the left side of the road and a vehicle
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7222-DB
bearing No.KA-29/A-9164 driven by its driver in rash and
negligent manner and dashed against her. Due to the fatal
injuries she died at the spot. Deceased was aged 19 years as
on the date of accident and was studying in B.E. Degree after
completion of Diploma.
4. On issuance of notice, respondents appeared before the
Tribunal and filed their separate objections. Respondent no.1
contended that accident had not occurred due to the negligence
on the part of respondent no.1. He further submitted that the
offending vehicle was insured with respondent no.2 and that he
was having valid and effective driving licence as on the date of
accident.
5. Respondent no.2-insurance company filed its objections
denying the claim petition averments and also stated that the
driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving
licence as on the date of accident. They also stated that the
claim is exorbitant.
6. Before the Tribunal, father of deceased, i.e., second
claimant, was examined as PW1 and also examined another
witness as PW2 apart from marking Exs.P.1 to P.15. No
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7222-DB
witness was examined on behalf of the respondent and with
consent documents at Ex.R.1 to R3 were marked. The Tribunal
based on the material on record awarded total compensation of
Rs.27,30,000/-. While awarding the above compensation the
Tribunal has assessed income of the deceased at Rs.25,000/-
per month, deducted 50% towards personal expenses and
applied multiplier of 18.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants Sri Siddappa Sajjan
contended that the Tribunal committed grave error in not
granting compensation towards future prospects. He submits
that deceased was aged 19 years. In terms of the decision of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others1, claimants
are entitled to add 40% of the assessed income towards future
prospects if the deceased was aged below 40 years. He further
contended that in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company
Ltd., Vs. Nanu Ram and Others2, the claimants are entitled
2017 (16) SCC 680
2018 ACJ 2782
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7222-DB
for consortium which the Tribunal has failed to award. Thus, he
prays for allowing the appeal.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent-insurer would support
the order passed by the Tribunal and submit that the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and it
needs no interference.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on
perusal of the appeal papers, the only point which falls for
consideration is as to:
Whether the claimants are entitled for enhanced
compensation?
10. The answer to the above point is 'partly in the affirmative'
for the following reasons.
11. The accident that occurred on 01.11.2019 involving
vehicle bearing No. KA-29-A-9164 and the resultant death of
Kum.Sahana is not in dispute in this appeal. The claimants are
before this Court praying for enhancement of compensation.
The Tribunal taking note of the qualification of the deceased,
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7222-DB
that the deceased was pursuing further studies in B.E. Civil
Engineering at Tontadarya College of Engineering, Gadag, after
completion of Diploma, correctly assessed notional income of
the deceased at Rs.25,000/-per month but failed to award any
compensation on the head of future prospects in terms of the
decision of the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra). Thus
the claimants are entitled for compensation on the head of
future prospects by adding 40% of the assessed income since
the deceased was aged 19 years. 50% of the same shall be
deducted towards personal expenses as the deceased was a
bachelor. The appropriate multiplier is 18. Thus, the claimants
are entitled for compensation in a sum of Rs.37,80,000/-
(Rs.25,000/- + Rs.10,000/- (40%) = Rs.35,000/- x 12 x 18 x
50%) as against Rs.27,00,000/- towards loss of dependency.
Further, the parents of the deceased, i.e., claimant nos.1 and
2, are entitled for Rs.40,000/- towards parental consortium.
The amount awarded towards funeral and transportation
expenses and towards loss of estate being just and proper the
same remains unaltered. The claimants are entitled for
compensation as under:
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7222-DB
1. Loss of dependency 37,80,000.00
2. Loss of consortium to appellant nos.1 80,000.00
and 2 at Rs.40,000/- each
3. Towards funeral and transportation 15,000.00
expenses
4. Loss of estate 15,000.00
Total 38,90,000.00
The claimants are entitled for a total compensation of
Rs.38,90,000/- as against Rs.27,30,000/- awarded by the
Tribunal.
12. For the above reasons, we pass the following order.
ORDER
a) The appeal is allowed in part.
b) The impugned judgment and awarded passed by the
Tribunal is modified to an extent that the claimants
would be entitled to total compensation of
Rs.38,90,000/- as against Rs.27,30,000/- 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 date of payment;
d) Respondent No.2-insurer shall deposit the enhanced
compensation amount along with accrued interest
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7222-DB
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 said amount shall be apportioned
in favour of the claimants as per the award of the
Tribunal.
f) Draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
BVV
