Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Controller vs Gaurav Kadam And Ors on 4 September, 2024
Author: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6639
MFA No. 201838 of 2019
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200009 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201838 OF 2019 (MV-D)
C/W
MFA CROSS OBJ NO.200009 OF 2024
IN MFA NO.201838/2019:-
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
NEKRTC, RAICHUR DIVISION,
RAICHUR.
NOW THROUGH ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER NEKRTC,
CENTRAL OFFICE, SARIGE SADAHANA, MAIN ROAD,
KALABURAGI.
Digitally signed
by SUMITRA
SHERIGAR
Location: HIGH ...APPELLANT
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. GAURAV KADAM ADOPTED SON OF LATE
MURALIDHAR KADAM
AGED: 27 YEARS,
OCC: PRIVATE EMPLOYEE,
2. PRAKASH KADAM
S/O LATE BAIROJI RAO KADAM
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6639
MFA No. 201838 of 2019
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200009 of 2024
AGED: 57 YEARS,
OCC: PRIVATE EMPLOYEE,
BOTH ARE R/O. H.NO. 4-7-81,
MANGALAWARPET,
RAICHUR-584101.
3. BASAVARAJ S/O SHARANAPPA
AGED: 31 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF NEKRTC BUS
BEARING NO. KA-36/F-922,
R/O. BENDONI VILLAGE, TQ. LINGASUGUR
DIST: RAICHUR-584101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI BASAVARAJ R. MATH, ADV. FOR R1 AND R2;
NOTICE TO R3-SERVED)
THIS MFA FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO
MODIFY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND HEAR THE
PARTIES AND SET ASIDE THE IN MVC NO.537/2017 IN THE
COURT OF PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE AND MACT AT RAICHUR
DATED-25.06.2019 AND ETC.
IN MFA CROB. NO.200009/2024:-
BETWEEN:
1. GAURAV KADAM ADOPTED SON OF LATE
MURALIDHAR KADAM
AGED: 32 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE EMPLOYEE,
2. PRAKASH KADAM S/O LATE BAIROJI RAO KADAM
AGED: 62 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE EMPLOYEE,
BOTH ARE R/O. H.NO. 4-7-81,
MANGALAWARPET,
RAICHUR-584101.
...CROSS OBJECTORS
(BY SRI BASAVARAJ R. MATH, ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6639
MFA No. 201838 of 2019
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200009 of 2024
AND:
1. BASAVARAJ S/O SHARANAPPA
AGED: 36 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF NEKRTC BUS
BEARING NO. KA-36/F-922,
R/O. BENDONI VILLAGE, TQ. LINGASUGUR
DIST: RAICHUR-584101.
2. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
NEKRTC, RAICHUR DIVISION,
RAICHUR-584101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA CROB IS FILED U/O. 41 RULE 22 OF CPC,
PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND ENHANCE THE AWARD
AMOUNT BY MODIFYING THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED25.06.2019 PASSED BY THE PRL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AND MACT AT RAICHUR IN MVC
NO.537/2017 IN RESPECT OF ENHANCING THE AWARD
AMOUNT AND PLEASED TO DISMISS THE MFA NO.201838/2019
FILED BY THE APPELLANT/INSURANCE COMPANY AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL AND MFA CROB COMING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6639
MFA No. 201838 of 2019
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200009 of 2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)
1. The Corporation as well as the claimants are in
appeal.
2. The Corporation is in appeal contending that the
claimants would not be entitled for compensation since the
assertion of the claimants that claimant No.1 had been
adopted by the deceased had not been proved. It is
contended that the Tribunal could not have awarded a sum
of Rs.75,000/- towards loss of love and affection and loss
of estate and could not awarded any compensation since
there was no dependency at all.
3. The case of the claimants was that the deceased was
a bachelor and was the younger brother of the claimant
No.2. It was specifically averred that they were living in a
joint family and the deceased by being a bachelor had
adopted the son of claimant No.2 i.e., claimant No.1 and
they were therefore entitled to maintain the claim petition.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6639
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200009 of 2024
It is also contended that since they were living together,
they were also dependant on the deceased and therefore
they were entitled to claim compensation.
4. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that
claimant No.2 had not established that the deceased had
taken his son i.e., claimant No.1 in adoption and therefore
there was no question of any dependency and therefore
they were not legal heirs who could maintain the claim
petition.
5. It is settled law that even brothers and sisters of a
deceased can maintain a claim petition and claim
compensation if they can establish that they were in any
way dependant on the deceased.
6. It may be pertinent to state here the fact that the
deceased was residing with the claimant No.2 has been
established by the production of the Ration Card, which
clearly indicates that the deceased was residing along with
the claimant No.2. In this case that the evidence on record
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6639
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200009 of 2024
clearly establishes that the deceased was residing with
claimant No.2.
7. Since it is not in dispute that the deceased was a
bachelor, the assertion of the claimants that he was
residing with claimant No.2 cannot therefore be seriously
disputed. If the deceased was residing with the claimant
No.2 in the same house, it will have to be held that there
was some element of dependency on him. Obviously, the
financial burden of claimant No.2 would have been lesser
by the deceased and also sharing in the household
expenditure and as a consequence, it will have to be held
that there was financial dependency on the deceased.
8. As far as the claim of the adopted son is concerned,
the Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that
there was no material to prove that he had been taken in
adoption. In that view of the matter, the dismissal of claim
petition of the claimant No.1 cannot be found fault with.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6639
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200009 of 2024
9. However, as stated above, since it is established that
claimant No.2 was dependant on the deceased, who was
younger brother, he would be entitled to claim
compensation.
10. The deceased was aged 60 years. Though it was
claimed that he was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per
month, there is no proof of his actual income. In cases
where there is no evidence to determine the actual
income, it would be appropriate to adopt the notional
income as assessed by the Karnataka State Legal Services
Authority, which for the year 2015 would be Rs.10,250/-.
The claimant being aged 60 years, no future prospects
need be added. Out of said sum, 50% would be deducted
towards personal expenses and as a consequence, the net
income will thus be Rs.5,125/-. Hence, the claimant No.2
would be entitled to sum of Rs.5,53,500/- towards loss of
dependency.
11. The claimant being the adopted son would be entitled
to a sum of Rs.44,000/- towards "loss of consortium" i.e.,
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6639
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200009 of 2024
and he would also be entitled to a sum of Rs.33,000/-
under the "conventional heads".
12. Thus, the claimant No.2, in modification of the
impugned award, would be entitled to the following sums :
Sl. Amount
Heads of Compensation
No. (in Rs.)
1. Loss of Dependency 5,53,500/-
2. Loss of Consortium 44,000/-
3. Conventional Head 33,000/-
Total 6,30,500/-
13. Thus, the claimant No.2 would be entitled for
compensation of Rs.6,30,500/- awarded by the Tribunal,
along with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum
from the date of petition till its realization.
14. The Corporation is directed to deposit the amount of
compensation awarded along with interest within a period
of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy
of this judgment and claimant No.2 shall be permitted to
withdraw the entire compensation.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6639
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200009 of 2024
15. The apportionment, deposit and release of the
enhanced compensation amount shall be made as per the
ratio adopted by the Tribunal.
16. The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to
the Tribunal forthwith
Both the appeals are accordingly allowed in part.
Sd/-
(N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)
JUDGE
MSR
CT: VD
