Karnataka High Court
Smt. Neelamma W/O Pakkirappa ... vs Shri Rajappa S/O Parashuramappa on 4 November, 2024
Author: H.T.Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T.Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16087-DB
MFA No. 102564 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102564 OF 2023 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. NEELAMMA W/O. PAKKIRAPPA CHOWDAMMANAVAR,
AGE 43 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK.
2. KUMAR RAJU S/O. PAKKIRAPPA CHOWDAMMANAVAR,
AGE 28 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE,
BOTH ARE R/O. LAKKAVALLI, P.O. KUBUTUR, TQ.SORABA,
DIST. SHIVAMOGGA, NOW AT DASANAKOPPA,
TQ. SIRSI, DIST. U.K. 581358.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. HARISH S. MAIGUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI. RAJAPPA S/O. PARASHURAMAPPA,
AGE 38 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. 7/3/314/3,
Digitally signed
by JAGADISH T NAVEENA, NAYANA NIVASA, THILAKA NAGAR,
R
BOLUR, MANGALURU, DAKSHINA KANNADA-575001.
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka, 2. THE AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
Dharwad Bench
ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD,
SHOP NO. 11 TO 14, 2ND FLOOR, SKD HEIGHTS,
MAIN ROAD, VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI 580029.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. S. JOSHI, ADV. FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA 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.358/2020, ON THE
FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT, SIRSI, DATED
01.04.2023, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16087-DB
MFA No. 102564 of 2023
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)
This appeal is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement
of compensation awarded by the learned Senior Civil Judge and
Additional MACT, Sirsi (for short, 'the Tribunal'), in M.V.C.
No.358/2020 by judgment and award dated 01.04.2023,
whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.16,37,000/- as
compensation with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from
the date of petition till its realization.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the claimants' case before the Tribunal
are as under:
On 28.08.2020 at about 12.00 noon the son of the
claimant No.1 by name Ramu Pakkirappa Chowdammanavar
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16087-DB
was riding his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-15/ED-
2053, on the left side of Government Hospital, Anavatti-
Hanagal road, Soraba, at that time the driver of Maruti Eco car
bearing registration No.KA-19/MJ-6861 came in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle of Ramu. Due
to the said impact, Ramu sustained severe injuries. Thus, he
was immediately shifted to Taluka Hospital, Anavatti, and later
he was shifted to Mcgann Hospital, Shivamogga, for treatment.
But, he died at 4.00 p.m. on account of the injuries sustained
in the accident.
4. Therefore, claimants filed a claim petition under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Tribunal
seeking compensation on the ground that claimant No.1 and 2
are the mother and brother of the deceased respectively.
5. The Tribunal considering the evidence on record at
Exs.P1 to P11, oral evidence of PW1, RW1 and RW5 and Exs.R1
to R9, granted total compensation of Rs.16,37,000/- with
interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till its
realization.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16087-DB
6. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants
submits that the Tribunal committed an error in assessing the
income of the deceased at Rs.13,750/- per month, inasmuch as
the deceased was doing Masson work and earning a sum of
Rs.40,000/- per month. He further submitted that the deceased
was just 22 years of tender aged boy at the time of accident,
due to untimely death of the deceased, claimants have lost sole
bread earner for family and hence, he prays for allowing the
appeal by enhancing the compensation reasonably.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondent/Insurance Company supports the impugned
judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that
considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the
Tribunal awarded just and reasonable compensation under each
heads, which does not call for interference at the hands of this
Court. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the appeal papers, the only point that would
arise for our consideration in this appeal is:
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16087-DB
"Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by
the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for
enhancement?"
9. There is no dispute with regard to the occurrence of
the accident on 28.08.2020, due to rash and negligent driving
of driver of Maruti Eco car, resulting in death of deceased
Ramu. The very fact that when the deceased met with an
accident and died as a bachelor, this aspect is not denied by
the Insurance Company. The claimants have stated that at the
time of accident the deceased was working as Masson and
earning Rs.40,000/- per month, apart from Ex.P1 to P11 no
documentary evidence is placed on record with regard to
income of the deceased. In the absence of any proof of income,
the Circular issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services
Authority as well as High Court Legal Services Committee,
Dharwad, has to be taken into consideration. The accident is of
the year 2018, we deem it appropriate to re-assess the notional
income of the deceased at Rs.13,750/- per month.
10. The deceased was aged about 22 years at the time
of the accident. The respondent-Insurance Company has not
disputed this aspect. As per decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16087-DB
in the case of Sarala Verma & Others Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Another1, multiplier applicable to the age of
the deceased is '18'.
11. The deceased Ramu died leaving behind his mother
and brother and no contra evidence is placed by the
respondent-Insurance Company in this regard. Therefore, ½ of
the income of deceased has to be deducted towards personal
expenses and ½ of his income has to be deducted towards
family expenses. The Tribunal has rightly considered the future
prospects of the deceased at 40% of the assessed income,
placing reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay
Sethi & Others2. Thus, loss of dependency is reckoned as
under:
Rs.13,750 + 40% (Rs.5,500) = 19,250 x ½ (9,625)
Rs.9,625 x 12 x 18 = Rs.20,79,000/-
12. Thus, the claimants are entitled Rs.20,79,000/-
towards loss of dependency as against Rs.15,12,000/- awarded
by the Tribunal.
2009 ACJ 1298
(2017) 16 SCC 680
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16087-DB
13. The compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal
on other conventional heads, which in our view are just and
reasonable one and no interference is called for in this regard.
14. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled to enhanced
compensation as under:
Loss of dependency Rs. 20,79,000/-
Towards Filial Consortium Rs. 80,000/-
Loss of estate Rs. 30,000/-
Towards Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/-
------------------
Total Rs.22,04,000/-
------------------
15. Thus, the claimants are entitled to total
compensation of Rs.22,04,000/- as against Rs.16,37,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal.
16. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
a) The appeal filed by the claimants is allowed
in part.
b) The impugned judgment and award of the
Tribunal is modified to an extent that the
claimants are entitled to total compensation
of Rs.22,04,000/- as against
Rs.16,37,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16087-DB
c) The enhanced compensation amount shall
carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum
from the date of petition till realization.
d) Respondent/Insurance Company shall deposit
the enhanced compensation with accrued
interest before the Tribunal within six weeks
from the date of receipt of copy of this
judgment.
e) Draw modified award accordingly.
f) Registry is directed to send a copy of this
judgment to the Tribunal forthwith.
g) No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
SMM/ct-an
