Karnataka High Court

Smt. Sugalabai And Anr vs The Divisional Controlleer on 14 November, 2024

                                                -1-
                                                              NC: 2024:KHC-K:8543
                                                          MFA No. 202203 of 2018




                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                                        KALABURAGI BENCH

                            DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

                                              BEFORE
                      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
                           MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 202203 OF 2018 (MV-D)

                      BETWEEN:

                      1.   SMT. SUGALABAI
                           @ SULGABAI
                           W/O ERANNA JAMADAR
                           AGE: 55 YEARS.
                           OCC: HOUSEHOLD

                      2.   SMT. SHARANAMMA
                           W/O DHARMANNA NATIKAR
                           AGE: 50 YEARS
                           OCC: HOUSEHOLD

                           BOTH ARE R/O TEJ SULTANPUR
                           TQ & DIST: KALABURAGI-585 103
                                                                    ...APPELLANTS

Digitally signed by   (BY SRI. NAGARAJ PATIL, ADVOCATE)
RENUKA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF              AND:
KARNATAKA
                      1.   THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLEER
                           NEKRTC, SARIGE SADAN
                           STATION ROAD, KALABURAGI-585 102
                                                                   ...RESPONDENT

                      (BY SRI. SUDHIRSING R. VIJAPUR, ADVOCATE)

                           THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO
                      CALL FOR RECORDS AND TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT, AWARD
                      DATED 01.03.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.141/2013 ON THE FILE
                      OF THE II ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT KALABURAGI
                                -2-
                                          NC: 2024:KHC-K:8543
                                      MFA No. 202203 of 2018




AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION
AMOUNT OF RS.14,99,999/- ONLY AS CLAIMED BY THE
APPELLANT BEFORE THIS HON BLE COURT AND ETC.

    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 questioning

the quantum determined by the Tribunal in

MVC.No.141/2013. The respondent No.1/Insurance

company admits its liability and therefore, the appeal is

purely on quantum.

2. The facts leading to the case are as under:

The claimants claiming to be the paternal aunt and

step mother of one Indrajeet have filed a claim petition

alleging that on 02.09.2012, Indrajeet was proceeding on

the side of the road was hit by the driver of the offending

bus and sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the

multiple injuries suffered. Hence, filed a claim petition.

NC: 2024:KHC-K:8543

The present appellants claimed that said Indrajeet

lost his parents at a tender age and therefore, appellant

No.1 being his paternal aunt and appellant No.2 being the

step mother have taken care of him and therefore, claimed

that they are dependents and hence, claimed

compensation.

3. The Tribunal having taken note of the

relationship of claimants with the deceased was not

inclined to grant compensation to the claimants herein

under the head 'loss of dependency'. Applying the

principles laid down by this Court in the case of

T.S.Rukmini and Another vs. M.B.Alyappa and Others

(2004 ACJ 909), the Tribunal proceeded to award

compensation under the head 'loss of estate'. The

Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased notionally at

Rs.6,000/- and after deducting 50% has awarded a sum of

Rs.1,63,000/- under the head 'loss of estate'. In all, a

sum of Rs.2,27,000/- is awarded.

NC: 2024:KHC-K:8543

4. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants

placing reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of N.Jayasree and Others vs.

Cholamandalam Ms. General Insurance Company

Ltd.1 has vehemently argued and contended that

claimants were dependent on the deceased and therefore,

would contend that claimants are entitled for

compensation under the head 'loss of dependency'.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the

Insurance company would point out that claimants are not

at all the legal heirs of the deceased nor they are

dependents and therefore, the compensation awarded by

the Tribunal is fair and just and would not warrant any

interference.

6. Heard learned counsel appearing of the

appellants and learned counsel appearing for the

Insurance company.

AIR 2021 SC 5218

NC: 2024:KHC-K:8543

7. Upon careful examination of the records

presented, this Court finds that the appellants/claimants

have failed to produce any credible documents to

substantiate their claim of dependency on the deceased.

The counsel appearing for the appellants has sought to

rely on a copy of a police complaint to support the

assertion that the deceased, having lost his parents at the

tender age of one, was thereafter brought up and cared

for by the claimants. However, this Court is unable to

place reliance on the contents of the police complaint for

this purpose. A complaint lodged for the purpose of

reporting an accident is not sufficient to establish the

relationship or dependency between the claimants and the

deceased. The averments made in such complaints lack

evidentiary value unless supported by corroborative

material or evidence presented during the proceedings.

Consequently, this Court does not consider the statements

in the police complaint adequate to substantiate the

dependency claims made by the appellants.

NC: 2024:KHC-K:8543

8. The appellants, identified as appellant No.1 and

appellant No.2, have respectively claimed to be the

paternal aunt and stepmother of the deceased, Indrajeet.

Despite these assertions, the claimants have failed to

produce any documentary evidence to substantiate their

purported relationship with the deceased. Appellant No.2,

who claims to be the stepmother of the deceased and the

widow of Dharmanna, has not provided any proof to

establish either her marital relationship with Dharmanna

or her status as the stepmother. Similarly, Appellant No.1

has not furnished any records to validate her claim of

being the paternal aunt. Aside from the police records,

which merely outline the circumstances of the accident,

the claimants have shown a lack of diligence in submitting

documentary proof such as identity records, family

registers, or affidavits that could support their claims. This

omission leaves their assertions unsubstantiated and

devoid of the necessary legal credibility required to

adjudicate their dependency claims.

NC: 2024:KHC-K:8543

9. Be that as it may. Though claimants are not

entitled for compensation under the head 'loss of

dependency', however, this Court is of the view that

income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.6,000/- notionally

appears to be on the lower side. Having regard to the fact

that accident is of the year 2012, this Court is inclined to

place reliance on the income chart prepared by the Legal

Services Authority. Accordingly, income is assessed at

Rs.6,500/- and by adding 40% towards future prospects,

the income is assessed at Rs.9,100/-. By taking 1/3rd of

Rs.9,100/-, the income is taken at Rs.3,033.33/- and by

applying multiplier of 18, the compensation determined

under the head 'loss of estate' works out to Rs.6,55,199/-.

Under conventional heads, a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- is

awarded. The total compensation re-determined by this

Court works out to Rs.7,65,199/- as against Rs.2,27,000/-

awarded by the Tribunal.

10. For the reasons stated supra, this Court

proceeds to pass the following:

NC: 2024:KHC-K:8543

ORDER

(i) The appeal is allowed in part;

(ii) The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC.No.141/2013 is modified;

(iii) The appellants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.5,38,199/- which shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization;