Karnataka High Court
Susheela @ Susheelamma vs K P Rajashekar on 5 September, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:36320
MFA No. 7870 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7870 OF 2023(MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SUSHEELA @ SUSHEELAMMA,
W/O LATE SWAMY GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
MUDANAHALLI VILLAGE,
KUNDURU HOBLI,
ALURU TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201.
2. PUSHPA,
W/O. JANANA MURTHY C.M.
D/O. LATE SWAMYGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
CHAKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
KADALU POST, KUNDURU HOBLI,
ALURU TALUK,
Digitally signed by
AASEEFA PARVEEN HASSAN DISTRICT - 573201.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA ...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. SANDHYA. D, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. K. P. RAJASHEKAR,
S/O. PUTTARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF IMTHIPURA VILLAGE,
KANATURU POST,
ALURU TALUK,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:36320
MFA No. 7870 of 2023
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573201.
(OWNER OF THE BOLERO PICKPUP
BEARING NO. KA-13-D0260)
2. THE MANAGER,
THE CHOLAMANDALAM
GENERAL INSC. CO. LTD.,
UNIT NO. 04, 9TH FLOOR,
LEVEL - 6, GOLDEN HEIGHTS COMPLEX,
59TH C CROSS, INDUSTRIAL SUBURB,
RAJAJINAGARA 4TH M BLOCK,
BENGALURU - 560 010.
(POLICY NO 3313/00286596/000/00
DATED 29-01-2021 TO 28.01-2022
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. J.S. HALASHETTI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
VIDE ORDER DATED 08.08.2024,
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.05.2023 PASSED IN
MVC NO.1607/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING
THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:36320
MFA No. 7870 of 2023
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Smt.Sandhya.D, learned counsel for the
appellants as well as Sri.J.S.Halashetti, learned counsel for
respondent No.2-Insurance Company.
2. The mother and the sister of the deceased
Purushotham.M.S who died in the road traffic accident that
occurred on 09.04.2021 are before this Court seeking
enhancement of compensation. They challenge the order
that is rendered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Hassan in MVC No.1607/2021 dated 30.05.2023. As
against the claim for Rs.35,00,000/-, the Tribunal through
the impugned order awarded a sum of Rs.15,42,000/- as
compensation.
3. Arguing the matter, learned counsel for the
appellants Smt.Sandhya.D contends that the deceased
Purushotham.M.S (herein after referred to as the
'deceased' for brevity) by working in a bakery and also by
attending agricultural work was earning Rs.30,000/- p.m.
However, the Tribunal took the earnings of the deceased
NC: 2024:KHC:36320
notionally as Rs.14,000/- p.m. which is unjustifiable.
Learned counsel contends that the accident occurred in the
year 2021 and for the relevant period the Karnataka State
Legal Services Authority is taking the notional income as
Rs.15,000/- p.m. and at least the said figure should have
been considered by the Tribunal.
4. Learned counsel Sri.J.S.Halashetti did not raise
any objection for adopting the said figure. Also having
considered the age of the deceased as 23 years by the
date of accident, this Court is of the view that his notional
income is required to be taken as Rs.15,000/- p.m. as
prayed for.
5. The next contention that is raised by
Smt.Sandhya.D for the appellants is that the Tribunal
failed to add future prospects. The impugned award
discloses justification in the said submission. Admittedly,
the deceased was not a permanent employee. Therefore,
having considered his age as 23 years by the date of
accident and was self employed, as per the decision of the
NC: 2024:KHC:36320
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 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.
6. The deceased died in the capacity of bachelor.
Therefore, 50% of the earnings of the deceased are
required to be deducted towards personal and living
expenses which the deceased would have incurred for
himself had he been alive. Also the appropriate multiplier
to be applied as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others
Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in
AIR 2009 SC 3104 is '18'.
7. With the aforementioned parameters, the loss
of dependency is calculated as under:
Notional monthly income Rs.15,000/-
Annual income Rs.1,80,000/-
Add 40% towards future Rs.2,52,000/-
prospects
NC: 2024:KHC:36320
Deduct 50% towards personal Rs.1,26,000/-
and living expenses
Loss of dependency on applying
appropriate multiplier '18' Rs.22,68,000/-
8. Learned counsel Smt.Sandhya.D for the
appellants also contends that the Tribunal did not award
any amount towards loss of consortium. Admittedly, the
first appellant lost her son i.e., the deceased. Therefore,
as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay
Sethi's case and as the accident occurred in the year
2021, the first appellant is entitled to a sum of
Rs.44,000/- towards loss of filial consortium.
9. Thus, the compensation which the appellants
are entitled to under different heads is as under:
Sl.No Description Amount
1 Loss of dependency Rs.22,68,000
2 Funeral expenses Rs.16,500
3 Loss of estate Rs.16,500
4 Loss of filial consortium Rs.44,000
Total Rs.23,45,000
NC: 2024:KHC:36320
10. The Tribunal through the impugned order
awarded a sum of Rs.15,42,000/- only towards
compensation. However, the justifiable sum which the
appellants are entitled to is Rs.23,45,000/-.
11. Thus 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, Hassan
through orders in MVC No.1607/2021
dated 30.05.2023 is enhanced from
Rs.15,42,000 to Rs.23,45,000/-.
(iii) The enhanced sum shall carry interest at
the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of
petition till the date of deposit.
(iv) Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the
enhanced sum within a period of 8(eight)
weeks from the date of receipt of copy of
this order.
NC: 2024:KHC:36320
(v) On such deposit, the appellants are
permitted to withdraw their respective
shares immediately.
(vi) The apportionment made applies to
enhanced sum as well.
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
NS
CT:TSM
