Karnataka High Court

Sri Lakshmaiah vs Harshitha Y N on 13 November, 2024

                                                 -1-
                                                            NC: 2024:KHC:46170
                                                          MFA No. 3520 of 2021




                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                          DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

                                             BEFORE
                         THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
                    MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3520 OF 2021(MV-D)


                    BETWEEN:

                    1.    SRI. LAKSHMAIAH,
                          S/O MARANNA,
                          AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

                    2.    SMT. SHIVAMMA L.,
                          D/O. LAKSHMAIAH
                          AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS

                    3.    SMT. GAYATHRI L.,
                          D/O LAKSHMAIAH
                          AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS

Digitally signed by 4.    SMT. VARALAKSHMI L.,
AASEEFA PARVEEN           D/O LAKSMAIAH
Location: HIGH            AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
COURT OF
KARNATAKA                 ALL ARE R/AT NO. 260,
                          NEAR GANESH TEMPLE,
                          RAJAJGOPALANAGAR TEMPLE,
                          LAGGARE, BENGALURU - 560 058.

                                                                 ...APPELLANTS

                    (BY SRI. H.T JAGADEESH,ADVOCATE)
                                -2-
                                            NC: 2024:KHC:46170
                                          MFA No. 3520 of 2021




AND:


1.   SRI. HARSIHA Y. N.,
     S/O NARASEEYAPPA,
     23-1, PAPANNA BUILDING
     7TH CROSS, CHOKKASANDRA
     BENGALURU - 560 057.

2.   THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE,
     CO. LTD.,
     T. P. HUB, NO.9/2,
     MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBERS
     M. G. ROAD,
     BENGALURU - 560 001.

                                               ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. Y. ARUNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1- NOTICE DISPENSED WITH, V/O. DATED 02.03.2023)


       THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT    AND   AWARD    DATED     27.11.2020    PASSED   IN
MVC NO.5253/2017 ON THE FILE OF            THE X ADDITIONAL
JUDGE,   COURT    OF   SMALL    CAUSES,    MACT,   BENGALURU
(SCCH-16) PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION       AND     SEEKING        ENHANCEMENT       OF
COMPENSATION.

       THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:



CORAM:    HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
                                    -3-
                                                    NC: 2024:KHC:46170
                                               MFA No. 3520 of 2021




                          ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard Sri.Jagadeesh.H.T. learned counsel for the

appellant as well as Smt.Y.Aruna learned counsel for

respondent No.2.

2. Appellant No.1 being the husband, appellant Nos.2

to 4 being the daughters of the deceased Hanumakka who died

in a road traffic accident that occurred on 08.06.2017, filed a

petition claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- in total. The

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru which dealt with

the case as MVC No.5253/2017 rendered orders on 27.11.2020

holding that the appellants are entitled to receive a sum of

Rs.6,98,000/- as compensation from the respondents.

3. Sri.Jagadeesh.H.T. representing the appellants

contends that appeal is filed on two grounds. Firstly, the

Tribunal erred in attributing contributory negligence on part of

the deceased Hanumakka (hereinafter be referred to as the

'deceased' for brevity). Secondly, the sum awarded as

compensation is grossly low.

NC: 2024:KHC:46170

4. Arguing on the first ground, learned counsel

Sri.Jagadeesh.H.T. submits that though the deceased was not

at fault and the accident occurred only due to the rash

and negligent driving of driver of respondent No.1, yet the

Tribunal attributed contributory negligence to the extent of

20% on part of the deceased unjustifiably. Learned counsel

submits that the entire negligence lies on the part of the rider

of the motorcycle which is involved in the accident.

5. On the other hand, Smt.Y.Aruna submits that

deceased was not supposed to cross the road wherever she

intends to. Though there was no zebra crossing mark at the

place where the deceased was crossing the road, as she was

also crossing the road negligently, the Tribunal held that the

deceased also contributed for the accident to occur.

6. The facts of the case in nutshell as per the material

available on record are that on 08.06.2017 at about 9.05 A.M.,

while the deceased was crossing the road in front of AMS

Factory near Peenya Industrial Area, a motorcycle bearing

registration No.KA-04-HT-9024, which was being ridden by its

rider in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the

NC: 2024:KHC:46170

deceased due to which she sustained fatal injuries and

succumbed to those injuries.

7. Undisputedly, a complaint was given against the

rider of the motorcycle and ultimately, on investigation, a

charge sheet was laid holding that due to the negligence of the

rider of the motorcycle, which is involved in the accident, the

accident occurred. The contents of Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 establishes

the said fact. Equally it is established that there was no zebra

crossing mark at the place of accident for the deceased to cross

the road. However, only because the deceased was crossing the

road where there was no such mark, it cannot be held that she

contributed to an extent of 20% for the accident to occur.

Having considered the totality of the facts of the case and the

evidence produced, this Court is of the view that the

contributory negligence on part of the deceased can be fixed as

5%.

8. Coming to the aspect of the amount that is awarded

as compensation, the Tribunal through the impugned order held

that the compensation that can be awarded is Rs.8,71,900/-

divided under the following heads:

NC: 2024:KHC:46170

Sl No. Head of Compensation Amount/Rs.

1. Loss of dependency 8,01,900-00

2. Loss of consortium 40,000-00

3. Loss of estate 15,000-00

Funeral and transportation 15,000-00

4.

expenses Total 8,71,900-00

9. Though the appellants projected that the deceased

by working as sweeper was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, no

substantive proof to that effect was produced. In this regard

the submission of Sri.Jagadeesh.H.T. learned counsel for the

appellants is that the accident occurred in the year 2017 and

for the relevant period the Karnataka State Legal Services

Authority is taking the notional income as Rs.11,000/- per

month for settlement of claims and atleast said figure should

have been adopted by the Tribunal.

10. On the other hand, Smt.Y.Aruna submits that the

earning member in the family is only appellant No.1 who was

the husband of the deceased and the deceased was only a

homemaker.

11. Even if it is taken that the deceased was a

homemaker, her contribution for the flourishment of the family

NC: 2024:KHC:46170

would be to a great extent. Only because a homemaker attends

the house chores, the other members of the family would be in

a position to attend their respective occupation. Therefore, this

Court considers desirable to take the national income of the

deceased as Rs.11,000/- per month.

12. Thus, taking the notional income of the deceased as

Rs.11,000/- per month and adding 10% of the earning towards

future prospects as the deceased was aged about 56 years by

the date of accident, deducting 1/4th of the earnings towards

personal and living expenses which the deceased would have

incurred for herself had she been alive as the dependents at

four in number and applying the appropriate multiplier '9', the

compensation which the appellants are entitled to under the

head loss of dependency is as under:

Amount Description In Rs.

           Notional monthly income                  11,000-00
           Annual Income (11,000X12)              1,32,000-00
           On adding 10% towards future
                                                  1,45,200-00
           prospects (1,32,000+10%)
           On    deducting    1/4th   towards
                                                  1,08,900-00
           personal and living expenses
           Loss of dependency, on applying
                                                  9,80,100-00
           appropriate multiplier '9'

                                                NC: 2024:KHC:46170

13. Thus, the appellants are entitled to a sum of

Rs.9,80,100/- towards loss of dependency. Together with the

said amount the appellants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards

funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. The

first appellant, being the husband of the deceased, is entitled to

a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium. The

Appellant Nos.2 to 4 being the children of the deceased are

entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards loss of parental consortium.

Thus, the compensation which the appellants are entitled to

under different heads is as under:

Amount Sl No. Compensation in Rs.

1 Loss of dependency 9,80,100-00 2 Funeral expenses 15,000-00 3 Loss of estate 15,000-00

4 Loss of spousal consortium 40,000-00 Loss of parental 5 40,000-00 consortium Total 10,90,100-00

14. Though the appellants are entitled to a sum of

Rs.10,90,100/- as compensation, having regard to the fact that

the contributory negligence on part of the deceased is 5%, the

compensation which the appellants are entitled to receive from

NC: 2024:KHC:46170

the respondents is Rs.10,35,595/-. Thus, the appeal is disposed

of with the following:

ORDER

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

(ii) The compensation that is awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru through orders in MVC No.5253/2017 dated 27.11.2020 which is payable by the respondents is enhanced from Rs.6,98,800/- to Rs.10,35,595/-.