Karnataka High Court
Ashwathnarayana vs M Nagaraj on 10 September, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:37046
MFA No. 1195 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 1307 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
MFA NO. 1195 OF 2015 C/W
MFA NO. 1307 OF 2015 (MV-D)
IN MFA No.1195/2015
BETWEEN:
ASHWATHNARAYANA
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA
R/AT NO.183, 6TH CROSS
INDIRANAGARA, BIDADI
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMARA., ADV.)
AND:
1. M NAGARAJ
MAJOR IN AGE, S/O MUNISHYAMAPPA
R/AT SINGANAYAKANAHALLI (V & P)
YALAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU-64
Digitally signed by 2. LOKESH REDDY
PRAJWAL A MAJOR IN AGE, S/O MUNIRAMAREDDY
Location: HIGH COURT R/AT NO.55, S.N.HALLI ( V & P)
OF KARNATAKA YALAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU-64
(OWNER OF THE CAR BEARIANG
NO.KA-04-MB-1320)
3. THE MANAGER
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD.
NO.44/45, 4TH FLOOR
LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX
RESIDENCY ROAD CROSS
BENGALURU-25
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:37046
MFA No. 1195 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 1307 of 2015
4. KRISHNAPPA
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O VENKATAPPA, R/AT NO.212
5. SMT.DHANALAKSHMAMMA
AGED 48 YEARS
W/O KRISHNAPPA
RESPONDENT NOS.4 & 5 ARE R/AT NO.212
ADDEVISHWANTHAPURA, BENGALURU-64
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.KHETHAN S. LATUR, ADV. FOR
SRI. SURESH M LATUR FOR R4 & R5.,
SMT. SUJATHA PANDIT, ADV. FOR
SRI.K.SRIDHARA, ADV. FOR R3;
SRI. SURESHA AND ASSTS, ADV. FOR R1;
R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
IN MFA NO.1307/2015
BETWEEN:
1. SRI KRISHNAPPA
S/O SRI.VENKATAPPA
AGE 51 YEARS, OCC:COOLIE
2. SMT.DHANALAKSHMAMMA
W/O SRI.KRISHNAPPA
AGED 47 YEARS
OCC: HOUSE WIFE
BOTH ARE R/AT 212
ADDEVISHWANATHAPURA
BENGALURU NORTH (ADDL)
BANGALORE URBAN-560 064 ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.KHETHAN S. LATUR, ADV. FOR
SRI. SURESH M LATUR., ADV. [VC])
AND:
1. SRI M NAGARAJ
S/O SRI.MUNISHYAMAPPA
SINGANAYAKANAHALLI (V & P)
YALAHANKA HOBLI
BANGALORE-560 064
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:37046
MFA No. 1195 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 1307 of 2015
2. SRI.LOKESH REDDY
S/O MUNIRAMA REDDY
NO.55, S.N.HALLI (V & P)
YALAHANKA, BANGALORE-560 064
3. THE MANAGER
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NO.44/45, 4TH FLOOR
LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX
RESIDENCY ROAD CROSS
BENGALURU-560 025
4. SRI.ASHWATHANARAYANA
S/O SRI.NARAYANAPPA
INDIRANAGARA, 6TH CROSS
BIDADI, RAMANAGARA DIST-562 117 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.SUJATHA PANDIT, ADV. FOR
SRI.K.SRIDHARA, ADV. FOR R3 [VC];
SRI. VIJAYA KUMARA, ADV. FOR R4;
VIDE ORDER DATED 2.2.2015
NOTICE TO R1 & R2 DISPENSED WITH)
THESE MFA'S ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.10.2014
PASSED IN MVC NO.5693/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE II
ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXVIII ACMM, MACT,
BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
ORAL JUDGMENT
In these appeals, the husband of the deceased
Netravati is seeking enhancement of compensation
whereas the parents of the deceased Netravati apart
NC: 2024:KHC:37046
from seeking enhancement questioning the award of
compensation to the husband of the deceased.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall
be referred to as per their status before the Tribunal.
3. Undisputedly, there was an accident on
30.07.2012 at 6:45 p.m. involving a car bearing
No.KA-04/MB-1320 and the deceased Netravati on
D.B.Pura-Nelamangala road in front of Aralumallige
Government School at Doddaballapura. The car hit
against the deceased, due to which she sustained fatal
injuries, during transit to the Government Hospital,
Doddaballapura, she succumbed to death. The parents
of the deceased approached the Tribunal seeking grant
of compensation of Rs.15 lakhs against the driver,
owner and insular of the car. Later husband of the
deceased was impleaded as 4th respondent. The claim
was opposed by respondent Nos.1 to 3. The Tribunal
after taking evidence and hearing both parties
assessed the compensation of Rs.2,85,000/- and
NC: 2024:KHC:37046
deducted Rs.1,00,000/- paid to the petitioners by the
owner of the vehicle and awarded Rs.2,85,000/- and
apportioned the compensation of Rs.1,85,000/- to the
parents and Rs.1,00,000/- to the husband. Pleading
inadequacy and seeking enhancement, the husband
and questioning the apportionment of Rs.1 lakh
compensation to the husband, the parents are before
this Court.
4. Heard the arguments of Sri.Vijayakumara,
learned counsel for the husband, Sri.Suresh M.Latur,
learned counsel for the parents and Smt.Sujatha
Pandit, learned counsel for the Insurance Company.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the
husband of the deceased that the marriage between
him and the deceased was subsisting, the deceased
was residing in the marital home, he being a bus
conductor, used to visit her parental house at
Doddaballapur. Being a husband, he is sole dependent
on the deceased and he is entitled to claim loss of
NC: 2024:KHC:37046
dependency apart from compensation under the
conventional heads. The Tribunal erroneously held
that the parents and husband are entitled only to loss
of estate and awarded meager compensation and he
sought for assessment of compensation under
dependency apart from conventional heads.
5.1. It is further contended that he being the
husband as Class-I heir alone is entitled to claim
compensation. The claim made by the in-laws not
being the legal representatives of the married daughter
has to be dismissed. The Tribunal apportioned the
major compensation in favour of in-laws and awarded
him only Rs.1 lakh and he sought for modification.
6. Learned counsel for the parents of the
deceased has contended that, after marriage, the
deceased led marital life at Bidadi only for one year,
thereafter her husband had troubled her and driven
her out of matrimonial home and for this reason, their
daughter came down to parental house and resided
NC: 2024:KHC:37046
therein with the parents. They were taking care of the
daughter and daughter was taking care of them. They
are interdependent to each other and therefore, they
are the dependants. The husband estranged his wife,
even he has not attended funeral and obsequies of the
deceased, only on the ground that he was impleaed as
one of the respondents, he is making unnecessary
claim, he was not dependant on the deceased. He is
not even entitled to compensation under conventional
heads as he has harassed the deceased and driven her
out of the matrimonial home.
7. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company
has contended that at the time of accident, the
deceased was residing at Doddaballapura taluk wherein
husband was residing in Bidadi taluk. There was no
relationship of husband and wife, their marriage was
totally broken down and he is an unknown person to
the wife on the date of accident. He is not entitled to
any compensation under the conventional heads nor
NC: 2024:KHC:37046
dependency and the claim made by the husband is
liable to be dismissed. The award of the Tribunal is
already satisfied and it is not a case for enhancement.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the
arguments addressed on behalf of the parties and also
perused the materials on record.
9. The accident in question is not in dispute. The
Insurance Company has already satisfied the award.
The only point is regarding quantum of compensation
and entitlement of the parents as well as husband to
claim compensation either as dependants or as the
legal representatives.
10. Firstly, on the date of accident, undisputedly,
the deceased was residing with her parents at
Doddaballapur. The inquest mahazar on record clearly
points out that the deceased was with her parents as
her husband had driven her out of the matrimonial
home. The inquest mahazar did not point out that the
deceased was wife of the fourth respondent herein.
NC: 2024:KHC:37046
The statement of father of the deceased during the
course of inquest clearly points out that 6-7 years prior
to the accident, marriage of deceased was performed
with her husband, after marriage only for a period of
one year they lived together at Bidadi, thereafter his
son-in-law driven her out of the matrimonial house and
she came down and was residing with her parents.
Even the evidence on record clearly points out that the
husband did not attend the funeral and obsequies.
Only after he was impleaded in the case, making claim
that he is dependant and he has showered love and
affection to his wife and he is alone entitled to claim
compensation.
11. The material on record goes to show that the
parents were having other children. The deceased is
married daughter. Due to matrimonial dispute, she
was residing with the parents. The evidence on record
did not point out the dependency on the deceased
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37046
either by husband or by the parents. Hence, it is a
clear case of loss of estate and conventional heads.
12. The accident is of the year 2012. A person
with no proof of income will earn not less than
Rs.7,000/- per month and it has to be taken as
notional income of the deceased. The deceased was
aged 24 years. 40% has to be considered towards
future prospects, since she had left the conjugal life
and residing with parents, 50% has to be deducted
towards personal expenses and '18' will be the
applicable multiplier. Then the loss of dependency
comes to: Rs.7,000/- + Rs.2,800/- (40%) = 9,800/- -
Rs.4,900/- (50%) = Rs.4,900/-x12x18 =
Rs.10,58,400/-. 30% of it has to be considered
towards loss of estate which comes to Rs.3,17,520/-.
Towards loss of love and affection to the parents and
husband at Rs.40,000/- each and Rs.15,000/- towards
loss of estate has to be considered. In view of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37046
Insurance Co.Ltd. -vs- Pranay Sethi and Others1
as the accident is 12 years old, 10% appreciation has
to be given, then the compensation under conventional
heads comes to Rs.1,48,500/-. Total compensation
comes to Rs.4,66,020/- as against Rs.3,85,000/-
assessed by the Tribunal, thereby enhancement of
Rs.81,020/-.
13. As regarding apportionment of the
compensation is concerned, during the course of
evidence, the parents have admitted that they have
received Rs.1 lakh from the owner of the vehicle.
Same was deducted from the total compensation by
the Tribunal. Out of remaining Rs.2,85,000/-,
Rs.1,00,000/- was ordered to be paid to the husband
and remaining is ordered to be paid to the parents.
While assessing the compensation under conventional
heads towards loss of love and affection and loss of
(2017) 16 SCC 680
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37046
consortium to the husband is calculated at Rs.44,000/-
for which he is entitled to and he has to be awarded
20% of loss of estate, which comes to Rs.63,504/- and
his entitlement will be Rs.1,07,504/- instead of
Rs.1,00,000/- apportioned by the Tribunal.
14. The parents have to be paid the remaining
compensation minus Rs.1,00,000/- already received
from the owner of the vehicle. Accordingly, both
appeals merit consideration, in the result, the
following:
ORDER
i) Both Appeals are allowed-in-part;
ii) Impugned judgment and award is
modified;
iv) Petitioners are entitled to total
compensation of Rs.4,66,020/- instead of
Rs.3,85,000/- awarded by the Tribunal
with interest of 6% p.a. from the date of
petition till the date of deposit;
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37046
v) The husband of the deceased is entitled to
receive a sum of Rs.1,07,504/- and the
parents are entitled to receive balance of
compensation minus Rs.1,00,000/-
already received from the owner of the
vehicle;
vi) The Insurance is directed to deposit the
remaining compensation along with
interest @ 6% per annum within eight
weeks from the date of receipt of certified
copy of the judgment.
SD/-
(T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA)
JUDGE
KNM
