Karnataka High Court
Smt. Puttadevamma vs Harisha on 22 October, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:42272-DB
MFA No.1143/2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1143/2018 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. PUTTADEVAMMA
W/O LATE SUBBANNA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
2. JAYAKUMARA
S/O LATE SUBBANNA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.
3. HARISH
Digitally S/O LATE SUBBANNA
signed by K S
RENUKAMBA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
Location: ALL ARE RESIDING AT DEVEERAMMANAHALLI
High Court of
Karnataka VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI
NANJANGUD TALUK-571301.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. RAGHU R, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. HARISHA
S/O SWAMY H.P
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
RESIDENT OF LINGAYATH STREET
HANGALA VILLAGE
GUNDLUPET TALUK-571111.
2. M. LATISH KUMAR
S/O MARI K. NAYAR
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
NO.26, MIG, 54/B, 4TH MAIN ROAD
1ST CROSS, 1 & B BLOCK
RAMAKRISHNAGAR
MYSURU - 570022.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:42272-DB
MFA No.1143/2018
3. RELIANCE GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
NO.36/D, 1ST FLOOR, MYSORE
TRADE CENTRE, OPP KSRTC BUS STAND
MYSORE - 570001
POLICY NO.1403552334000354
VALID FROM 15-2-2015 TO 14-2-2016
MYSURU 570001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ASHOK N PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3
R1 & R2 ARE SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 11.10.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.825/2016 ON THE FILE OF
THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, MACT AT NANJANGUD, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
AND
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL)
Though the matter has come up for admission, with
consent of both side, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. "Whether the compensation awarded to the
appellants/claimants by the impugned award is just?" is the
question involved in this case.
3. The appellants were claimant Nos.1 to 3 and
respondents were respondent Nos.1 to 3 in MVC.No.825/2016
NC: 2024:KHC:42272-DB
before the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC and MACT, Nanjangud.
For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to
henceforth according to their ranks before the Tribunal.
4. Claimant No.1 is wife, claimant Nos.2 and 3 are
children of deceased Subbanna. On 08.12.2015, at 6:45 p.m.,
when Subbanna was proceeding on his bicycle near
Deveerammanahalli gate while waiting to cross the road, lorry
bearing No. KA-09-B-8028 driven by respondent No.1 hit the
bicycle of Subbanna and caused him grievous injuries.
Immediately the injured was shifted to Government Hospital,
Nanjangud and from there he was shifted to JSS Hospital,
Mysuru for higher treatment. On 09.12.2015 he succumbed to
the injuries in the hospital. At the relevant time, respondent
Nos.1 and 2 were the driver and owner respectively of the
offending lorry and respondent No.3 was the insurer of the
same.
5. Claimants filed MVC.No.825/2016 before the
Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.53,00,000/- on the
ground that the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month
by trading in banana and they were all dependent on his
NC: 2024:KHC:42272-DB
income. They claimed that due to his death they have suffered
damages to the tune of Rs.53,00,000/-.
6. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 did not contest the
petition. Only respondent No.3 insurer contested the petition
denying rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of
the lorry, age, occupation, income of the deceased and its
liability to pay the compensation. Respondent No.3 further
contended that the driver of the lorry was not holding effective
driving license and vehicle had no permit and fitness certificate
etc., thereby there is violation of condition of the policy.
7. In support of their claim, claimants got examined
claimant No.3 as PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P24.
Respondents did not adduce any evidence. The Tribunal on
hearing both the parties by the impugned award held that the
accident occurred due to the actionable negligence on the part
of respondent No.1/the driver of the lorry. The Tribunal
considered the age of the deceased as 51 years, notionally
assessed his income at Rs.6,500/- per month, deducted 1/3rd
from his income towards personal expenses, applied 11
multiplier and assessed the damages on the head of loss of
NC: 2024:KHC:42272-DB
dependency at Rs.5,72,000/-. The Tribunal in all awarded
compensation of Rs.7,61,760/- on different heads as below:
Sl. Particulars Compensation
No. awarded in Rs.
1. Loss of dependency 5,72,000/-
2. Loss of Consortium 50,000/-
3. Loss of Love & Affection 50,000/-
4. Loss of Estate 50,000/-
5. Medical expenses 19,760/-
6. Funeral and other expenses 20,000/-
Total Rs.7,61,760/-
8. Tribunal rejected the contention of respondent No.3
insurer about violation of the policy condition and directed to
deposit the compensation amount. Claimants/appellants have
challenged the award questioning the adequacy of the
compensation awarded.
9. Sri. Raghu R., learned counsel for the appellants
submits that the income assessed by the Tribunal is on the
lower side and the Tribunal ought to have added future
prospects to the income of the deceased.
10. Sri Ashok N Patil, learned Counsel for respondent
No.3 submits that since there was no proof of actual income,
NC: 2024:KHC:42272-DB
the Tribunal was justified in assessing income at Rs.6,500/- per
month.
Analysis
11. The fact that the claimants were the dependants of
the deceased, he was trading in banana and he was their bread
winner, was not disputed. At the time of accident, deceased
was aged 51 years and hale and healthy. Considering the cost
of living and prevailing wage rates during relevant period,
notional income assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side.
It should have been minimum at Rs.9,000/- per month.
12. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay
Sethi and Others1 and having regard to the age and
employment of the deceased, future prospects at the rate of
10% of the income of the deceased has to be added to his
income. As he had three dependants, 1/3rd of the income of the
deceased has to be deducted for his personal expenses.
Therefore, his monthly contribution to family comes to
Rs.6,600/-(9000+900=9,900 x 2/3). Applicable multiplier is 11.
(2017) 16 SCC 680
NC: 2024:KHC:42272-DB
Therefore, compensation payable on the head of loss of
dependency comes to Rs.8,71,200/- (6,600x12x11).
13. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the cases of Pranay Sethi's referred to supra and
Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram
&Ors2, each of the claimants are entitled to compensation of
Rs.40,000/- on the head of consortium with escalation of 10%.
Similarly, the claimants are entitled to compensation of
Rs.15,000/- on the heads of funeral expenses and loss of
estate with escalation at 10%, which comes to Rs.16,500/- on
each head. Medical expenses awarded was based on the
evidence adduced. Therefore, the just compensation payable is
as follows:
Particulars Amount (Rs.)
Loss of dependency 8,71,200/-
Loss of consortium 1,32,000/-
Loss of estate 16,500/-
Funeral expenses 16,500/-
Medical expenses 19,760/-
Total 10,55,960/-
Awarded by Tribunal 7,61,760/-
Enhanced compensation 2,94,200/-
(2018) 18 SCC 130
NC: 2024:KHC:42272-DB
14. For the aforesaid reasons, appeal deserves to be
allowed in part. Hence, the following:
ORDER
The appeal is allowed in part.
The claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of
Rs.2,94,200/- with interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date
of petition till its realization.
Respondent No.3 - insurer shall deposit the said amount
before the Tribunal within four weeks from the date of receipt
of copy of this order.
On such deposit, the Tribunal shall digitally release the
said amount to the claimants according to their respective
shares in terms of the award.
Sd/-
(K.S.MUDAGAL)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
ABK/PKN
