Karnataka High Court

Sri. Nikhil Gowda vs Nanjamma on 20 November, 2024

                                              -1-
                                                           NC: 2024:KHC:47022
                                                        MFA No. 5875 of 2022
                                                    C/W MFA No. 5843 of 2022



                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                        DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

                                           BEFORE
                       THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
                  MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5875 OF 2022(MV-D)
                                        C/W
                  MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5843 OF 2022(MV-D)

                  IN MFA No. 5875 OF 2022:

                  BETWEEN:

                  1.    SRI NIKHIL GOWDA
                        S/O LATE K RAGHU
                        AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS
                  2.    VIJAYAMMA
                        W/O LATE KENGEGOWDA
                        AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS

                        APPELLANT NO.1 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY
                        NATURAL GRANDMOTHER APPELLANT NO.2

                        BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
Digitally signed by     AMACHALLAI VILLAGE,
AASEEFA                 SNATHEBAHCAHALI HOBLI,
PARVEEN                 K. R. PETE TALUK,
Location: HIGH          MANDYA DISTRICT - 34.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA               PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
                        R/O, MADHU NIVASA,
                        NAGASAMUDRA ROAD,
                        2ND CROSS,
                        GAYATHRI EXTENSION,
                        CHANANRYAPATNA TOWN,
                        AND TALUK
                        HASSAN DISTRICT - 34
                                                                ...APPELLANTS
                  (BY SRI. PRATHEEP K. C.,ADVOCATE)
                            -2-
                                         NC: 2024:KHC:47022
                                      MFA No. 5875 of 2022
                                  C/W MFA No. 5843 of 2022



AND:

1.   NANJAMMA,
     W/O CHIKKEGOWDA,
     AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
     R/AT BETTADAHALLI VILLAGE,
     SHRAVANABELOGALA HOBLI,
     CHENNARAYAPATNA TALUK,
     HASSAN DISTRICT-34.


2.   REGIONAL MANAGER
     UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
     MADHU COMPLEX, MYSORE ROAD,
     CHANANRAYAPATNA TOWN, AND TALUK
     HASSAN DISTIRICT - 34
                                            ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A.M.VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1- NOTICE DISPENSED WITH, V/O. DATED 20.08.2024)

     THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.01.2022       PASSED IN
MVC NO.1496/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN, SITTING AT
CHANNARAYAPATNA, HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.

IN MFA NO. 5843 OF 2022:

BETWEEN:

1.   SRI NIKHIL GOWDA
     S/O LATE K RAGHU
     AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS
2.   VIJAYAMMA
     W/O LATE KENGEGOWDA
     AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
                            -3-
                                         NC: 2024:KHC:47022
                                      MFA No. 5875 of 2022
                                  C/W MFA No. 5843 of 2022



     APPELLANT NO.1 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY
     NATURAL GRANDMOTHER APPELLANT NO.2

     BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
     AMACHALLAI VILLAGE,
     SNATHEBAHCAHALI HOBLI,
     K. R. PETE TALUK,
     MANDYA DISTRICT - 34.

     PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
     R/O, MADHU NIVASA,
     NAGASAMUDRA ROAD,
     2ND CROSS,
     GAYATHRI EXTENSION,
     CHANANRYAPATNA TOWN,
     AND TALUK
     HASSAN DISTRICT - 34
                                         ...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. PRATHEEP K. C.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   NANJAMMA,
     W/O. CHIKKEGOWDA,
     AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
     R/AT BETTADAHALLI VILLAGE,
     SHRAVANABELAGOLA HOBLI,
     CHENNARAYAPATNA TALUK,
     HASSAN DISTRICT-34.

2.   REGIONAL MANAGER
     UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
     MADHU COMPLEX,
     MYSORE ROAD,
     CHANNARAYAPATNA TOWN AND TALUK,
     HASSAN DISTRICT-34.
                                      ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.A.M. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2
R1- NOTICE DISPENSED WITH, V/O. DATED 17.09.2024)
                                 -4-
                                                  NC: 2024:KHC:47022
                                            MFA No. 5875 of 2022
                                        C/W MFA No. 5843 of 2022



     THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.01.2022 PASSED IN
MVC NO.1495/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN, SITTING AT
CHANNARAYAPATNA, HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.

     THESE  APPEALS,   COMING ON   FOR   DICTATING
JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN
AS UNDER:
CORAM:       HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

                        ORAL JUDGMENT

While MFA No.5843/2022 is filed challenging the order

that is rendered in MVC No.1495/2019, MFA No.5875/2022 is

filed challenging the order that is rendered in MVC

No.1496/2019. Both the verdicts through common order were

rendered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hassan on

29.01.2022.

2. Heard Ms.Pavana who represents Sri.Pratheep K.C.,

learned counsel on record for the appellants in both the

appeals. Also heard Sri.Lakshminarasappa who represents

Sri.A.M.Venkatesh, learned counsel on record for respondent

No.2 in both the appeals.

3. While MFA No.5843/2022 relates to the claim raised

in respect of the deceased K.Raghu, MFA No.5875/2022 is in

NC: 2024:KHC:47022

respect of the deceased Pushpavathi. The deceased Raghu and

the deceased Pushpavathi are husband and wife as per the

material available on record. In both the cases the claimants

are common.

4. While the first claimant by name Nikhilgowda is the

son of the deceased Raghu, the second claimant Vijayamma is

the mother of the deceased Raghu and thereby mother-in-law

of the deceased Pushpavathi.

5. The matrix of both the cases is that on 2.7.2019

while the deceased Raghu and deceased Pushpavathi were

proceeding on a motorcycle, their motorcycle was hit by a

Tractor and Trailer bearing registration No.KA-13 TB-2465 and

2466. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent

driving of the driver of the said Tractor and Trailer. While

Smt.Pushpavathi died at the spot, Raghu succumbed to the

injuries while taking treatment at hospital.

6. The only point urged by learned counsel for the

appellants in both the appeals is in respect of adding future

prospects. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that in

both the cases the Tribunal omitted to add future prospects and

NC: 2024:KHC:47022

thereby the claimants did not receive justifiable sum as

compensation and therefore this Court should award the sum

which the appellants are entitled to in both the appeals.

7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 in both the

appeals did not raise any objection for adding such future

prospects. Also the request made is justifiable. Thus, this Court

now proceeds with computation of compensation in both the

appeals.

Computation of compensation in MFA No.5843/2022 which is connected to MVC No.1495/2019:

8. The age of the deceased Raghu admittedly was 45

years by the date of accident. The income taken by the Tribunal

is Rs.15,000/- per month. 25% of the earnings are required to

be added towards future prospects as per the decision of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs.

Pranay Sethi and Others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. Also,

as the dependents are two in number i.e. the son and mother,

1/3rd of the earnings are required to be deducted towards

personal and living expenses which the deceased Raghu would

have incurred for himself had he been alive. Also the

appropriate multiplier to be applied as per the decision of

NC: 2024:KHC:47022

Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi

Transport Corporation and Another, reported in 2009 SAR (Civ)

592 is '14'. Thus, the compensation which the appellants are

entitled to under the head 'loss of dependency' is as under:

                Description                    Amount in
                                                   Rs.
           Notional monthly income                15,000-00
           Annual income(15,000x12)             1,80,000-00
           On adding 25% towards
           future              prospects         2,25,000-00
           (1,80,000+25%)
           On deducting 1/3rd towards
           personal       and      living        1,50,000-00
           expenses
           Loss of dependency, on
           applying the appropriate            21,00,000-00
           multiplier '14'(1,50,000x14)


      Thus,    the   appellants    are      entitled   to   a   sum   of

Rs.21,00,000/- under the head 'loss of dependency'.

9. Together with the said amount, the appellants are

entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/-

towards loss of estate and Rs.48,134/- towards medical

expenses. Also the first appellant being the son of the deceased

Raghu is entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of

parental consortium and the second appellant being the mother

of the deceased is entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss

NC: 2024:KHC:47022

of filial consortium. Thus, the compensation which the

appellants are entitled to is as under:

Sl. Heads of compensation Amount in No Rs.

1 Loss of dependency 21,00,000-00 2 Funeral expenses 15,000-00 3 Loss of estate 15,000-00 4 Medical expenses 48,134-00 5 Parental consortium 40,000-00 6 Filial consortium 40,000-00 Total 22,58,134-00

10. The Tribunal through the impugned order awarded a

sum of Rs.18,13,134/- as compensation. However, the

justifiable sum which the appellants are entitled to in the light

of the foregoing discussion is Rs.22,58,134/-.

Computation of compensation in MFA No.5875/2022 which is connected to MVC No.1496/2019:

11. By all the material that is produced, the appellants

succeeded in establishing that the deceased Pushpavathi was

aged about 37 years by the date of accident. Therefore, as per

the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance

Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, reported in

(2017) 16 SCC 680, 40% of the earnings are required to be

added towards future prospects. Here is a case where the

NC: 2024:KHC:47022

claimants are son and mother-in-law. As rightly observed by

the Tribunal, mother-in-law cannot be termed to be the

dependent of deceased Pushpavathi. Thus, the only claimant

will be her son. Hence, 50% of the earnings are required to be

deducted towards personal and living expenses which the

deceased Pushpavathi would have incurred for herself had she

been alive. Also the multiplier to be applied as per the decision

of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi

Transport Corporation and Another, reported in 2009 SAR (Civ)

592 is '15'. The Tribunal has rightly taken the notional income

of the deceased as Rs.14,000/- per month. Thus, the

compensation which the son of the deceased Pushpavathi is

entitled to under the head 'loss of dependency' is as under:

                Description                   Amount in
                                                  Rs.
           Notional monthly income               14,000-00
           Annual income(14,000x12)            1,68,000-00
           On adding 40% towards
           future              prospects          2,35,200-00
           (1,68,000+40%)
           On deducting 50% towards
           personal       and      living         1,17,600-00
           expenses
           Loss of dependency, on
           applying the appropriate           17,64,000-00
           multiplier '15'(1,17,600x15)
                                 - 10 -
                                                   NC: 2024:KHC:47022

12. Thus, the first appellant i.e., the son of the

deceased Pushpvathi is entitled to Rs.17,64,000/- under the

head 'loss of dependency'. Together with the said amount he is

also entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses,

Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.40,000/- towards

loss of parental consortium. Thus, the total compensation which

the first appellant is entitled to is as under:

Sl. Heads of compensation Amount in No Rs.

        1     Loss of dependency                17,64,000-00
        2     Funeral expenses                     15,000-00
        3     Loss of estate                       15,000-00
        6     Parental consortium                  40,000-00
                      Total                    18,34,000-00

13. The Tribunal through the impugned order awarded a

sum of Rs.13,60,000/- as compensation. However, in the light

of the foregoing discussion, it is clear that the first appellant is

entitled to a sum of Rs.18,34,000/- as compensation.