Karnataka High Court
Smt Gowramma vs Reliance Gen Ins Co Ltd on 23 October, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:42626
MFA No. 3865 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3865 OF 2021(MV-D)
BETWEEN:
SMT. GOWRAMMA,
W/O BASAVARAJU,
AGED 40 YEARS,
R/AT MALLIGEMETILU VILLAGE,
MARALAVADI HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 117.
...APPELLANT
(BY MS. NITHYA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. PRAKASH M. H.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RELIANCE GEN. INS. CO. LTD.,
OFFICE AT 2ND FLOOR, BALAJI ENCLAVE,
NO. 782, 2ND FLOOR,
ABOVE BATA SHOW ROOM,
Digitally signed by 16TH MAIN ROAD, 2ND STAGE,
AASEEFA PARVEEN BTM LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560075.
Location: HIGH REP BY ITS MANAGER.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. SRI. BASAVARAJU G. M.,
S/O MAREGOWDA
AGED: MAJOR,
R/AT NO 3238, 2ND CROSS,
RAJYOTHSAVANAGARA, PIPELINE ROAD,
K. S. LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE,
BANGALORE SOUTH, BENGALURU - 560078.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNA REDDY N.A., ADVOCATE
FOR SRI. PRADEEP B.,ADVOCATE FOR R1;
V/O. DATED 11.09.2024, NOTICE TO R2 DISPENSED WITH)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:42626
MFA No. 3865 of 2021
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF THE MV ACT, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.03.2021 PASSED IN
MVC NO.4274/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL
JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT,
BENGALURU, (SCCH-14), 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
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Ms.Nithya learned counsel who represents
Sri.Prakash.H.C. learned counsel on record for the appellant.
Also heard Sri.Mallikarjun Reddy.N.A. learned counsel who
represents Sri.Pradeep.B learned counsel on record for
respondent No.1.
2. The appellant along with her father moved an
application claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- on
account of the death of her mother Muthamma (hereinafter be
referred to as the 'deceased' for brevity) in a road traffic
accident. The Tribunal held that claimant No.1 i.e,. the husband
of the deceased who is none other than the father of the
NC: 2024:KHC:42626
appellant alone is entitled for compensation. The Tribunal
awarded a sum of Rs.10,55,000/- as compensation.
3. The daughter i.e, the appellant alone preferred
appeal. She challenges the order that is passed by the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru in MVC 4274/2019 dated
03.03.2021.
4. Ms.Nithya, representing the appellant, submits that
claimant No.1 died after disposal of the claim petition and the
appellant herein is the only legal heir to claimant No.1 as well
as the deceased and therefore, she preferred appeal. Learned
counsel also states that the death certificate evidencing the
death of claimant No.1 is produced. Sri.Mallikarjun Reddy.N.A.
learned counsel who represents respondent No.1 did not deny
either the genuineness of death certificate produced or capacity
of the appellant to file the claim petition.
5. Arguing on merits, learned counsel for the appellant
Ms.Nithya submits that the deceased as an agriculturist was
earning Rs.15,000/- per month and apart from that she was
attending entire household work. Without considering these
facts, the Tribunal took the notional income of the deceased as
NC: 2024:KHC:42626
Rs.8,000/- per month which is improper. Learned counsel
states that the accident occurred in the year 2018 and for the
relevant period, the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is
taking the notional income Rs.12,500/- per month and at least
the said figure should have been considered by the Tribunal.
6. The submission that is made by Sri.Mallikarjun
Reddy.N.A. learned counsel for respondent No.1 on the other
hand is that the compensation that is granted by the Tribunal
is just and proper.
7. There is no material on record to show that the
deceased was either holding agricultural land or attending
agricultural work by the date of accident. Also the deceased
was aged about 60 years by the date of accident. Considering
these facts, this Court is of the view that the notional income of
the deceased is required to be taken as Rs.11,000/- per month.
Taking the notional income of the deceased as Rs.11,000/- per
month, deducting 50% of the earnings of the deceased towards
personal and living expenses which the deceased would have
incurred for herself had she been alive, as the dependent was
only her husband by the date of accident and applying the
NC: 2024:KHC:42626
appropriate multiplier '9', the compensation which can be
awarded 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
Deduct 50% towards personal
66,000-00
and living expenses
On applying appropriate
5,94,000-00
multiplier '9'
8. Thus, the compensation which is required to be
awarded under the head loss of dependency is Rs.5,94,000.
However, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,75,200/- under
the head loss of dependency. Thus, the enhancement will be
Rs.1,18,800/- (Rs.5,94,000/- - Rs.4,75,200/-)
9. The compensation that is awarded by the
Tribunal under all other heads is proper. However,
claimant No.2 i.e., the appellant herein is daughter of
the deceased. Therefore, she is entitled for a sum of
Rs.40,000/- towards loss of parental consortium. Thus, the
compensation which is required to be awarded in addition to
the sum that is granted by Tribunal as compensation is
NC: 2024:KHC:42626
Rs.1,58,800/- (Rs1,18,800/- + Rs.40,000/-). Therefore, 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, Bangalore, through
orders in MVC No.4274/2019 dated 03.03.2021 is
enhanced by Rs.1,58,800/-.
(iii) The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of
6% per annum from the date of petition till the date
of deposit.
(iv) Respondent No.1 is directed to deposit the
enhanced sum within a period of eight weeks from
the date of receipt of copy of this order.
(v) On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to
withdraw the entire amount.
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
DS
