Karnataka High Court
Revansiddappa S/O Anandappa Revangol vs District Health Officer And Anr on 4 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8050
MFA No. 200888 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200888 OF 2019 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. REVANSIDDAPPA S/O ANANDAPPA REVANGOL
AGED: 41 YEARS
OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE
R/O GOLA (K), TQ:CHITTAPUR
DIST:KALABURAGI
NOW AT GANGA NAGAR
BRAHMPUR, KALABURAGI.
2. TIPPAMMA D/O ANANDAPPA REVANGOL
W/O BHIMARAYA
AGE: 48 YEARS
OCC: HOUSEHOLD
3. MAHANANDA D/O ANANDAPPA REVANGOL
W/O DEVENDRAPPA TALWAR
Digitally signed by AGE: 46 YEARS
RENUKA OCC: HOUSEHOLD
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 4. SIDDAMMA D/O ANANDAPPA REVANGOL
W/O TIPPANNA NANDOOR
AGE: 44 YEARS
OCC: HOUSEHOLD
ALL R/O GOLA(K), TQ. CHITTAPUR
DIST. KALABURAGI
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. B.M. KINIKERI, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8050
MFA No. 200888 of 2019
AND:
1. DISTRICT HEALTH OFFICER
STDC HOUSING BOARD COLONY
OPP: GOVT. UNANI MEDICAL COLLEGE
GMS COMPUND, MAGADI ROAD
BANGALORE-560 079.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
DR. JAWALI COMPLEX
SUPER MARKET
KALABURAGI-585 102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. DEEPAK B. BARAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O/D 10.11.2022)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT,
PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28TH
DAY OF JANUARY 2019 PASSED BY 1ST ADDL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND MACT AT KALABURAGI IN MVC NO. 662/2016 AND
THE TOP NOTED APPEAL MAY KINDLY BE ALLOWED AND
AWARD THE COMPENSATION AS PRAYED IN THE CLAIM
PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
The captioned appeal is by the claimants seeking
enhancement of compensation in MVC.No.662/2016. The
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8050
respondent No.2/Insurance company admits its liability.
Therefore, the appeal is purely on quantum.
2. The appellant No.1 who is the son filed a claim
petition for having lost his mother in a road traffic accident
dated 06.06.2016 without impleading his sisters i.e.,
appellant Nos.2 to 4. The Tribunal though recorded a
finding that appellant's mother Dyavamma died in a road
traffic accident on account of negligence of the driver of
the offending vehicle, having noticed that the claimant is a
major son, proceeded to award a sum of Rs.15,000/-
towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral
expenses and a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards love and
affection. The Tribunal, in all, awarded a total
compensation of Rs.80,000/- which is under challenge.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and
learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. Perused
the judgment under challenge.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8050
4. In the present case, the issue raised is directly
governed by the legal principles established by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in National Insurance Company
Limited vs. Birender & Others1. In that landmark
judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered a similar
case in which the claim petition was filed by a major son
for the death of a parent in a road accident. The Supreme
Court clarified that a major son, even if he is earning an
independent livelihood, is still eligible to maintain a claim
petition under Section 166(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988. The Court emphasized that the loss of a parent,
especially a mother, has an emotional and financial
impact, which must be acknowledged by assessing "loss of
dependency." This judgment recognizes the need to
compensate for the emotional and sometimes even
financial support that a deceased parent may have
provided, irrespective of the claimant's age or earning
status.
AIR 2020 SC 434
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8050
5. Applying this legal precedent, it becomes
evident that the Tribunal's finding that the major son could
not maintain a claim petition due to his age and financial
independence was incorrect. Such reasoning fails to
consider the nuanced understanding of "dependency"
provided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Supreme
Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs.
Birender (supra) has unequivocally held that even adult
children, including sons who are earning independently,
are entitled to compensation for loss of dependency, as it
encompasses more than mere financial dependency; it
also includes the emotional and familial support lost. Thus,
the Tribunal's decision is contrary to the established legal
principles and is erroneous. Accordingly, the finding of the
Tribunal must be set aside, and the compensation
recalculated to appropriately include loss of dependency,
in line with the Hon'ble Supreme Court's guidance.
6. In absence of income proof, this Court is
inclined to rely on the income chart issued by the Legal
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8050
Services Authority. The accident is of the year 2016. The
income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.8,750/-.
Deceased was aged 60 years and therefore, 10% is added
towards future prospects. The total income is assessed at
Rs.9,625/-. Deceased is survived by one major son and
three daughters, therefore 1/4th is deducted. After
deducting 1/4th, the income is assessed at Rs.7,218.75/-
and by applying the multiplier of 9, the compensation
payable under the head 'loss of dependency' works out to
Rs.7,79,625/- (7,218.75x12x9).
7. Since deceased is survived by four legal heirs, a
sum of Rs.1,90,000/- is awarded under conventional
heads. The total compensation re-determined by this
Court works out to Rs.9,69,625/- as against Rs.80,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal.
8. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds
to pass the following:
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8050
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part;
(ii) The judgment and award passed by the
Tribunal in MVC.No.662/2016 is modified;
(iii) The appellants are entitled to enhanced
compensation of Rs.8,89,625/- which shall carry
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the
date of petition till realization;
(iv) The apportionment shall be made in
terms of the order of the Tribunal;
(v) The amount in deposit, if any, shall be
remitted to the Tribunal.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
CA
