Karnataka High Court
Bannurao And Ors vs Sai Agency And Anr on 11 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:973
MFA No. 204328 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
MISC. FIRST APPEAL NO.204328 OF 2023 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. BANNURAO S/O BILLA RATHOD,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
2. JANABAI W/O BANNURAO,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
3. RAJESH S/O BANNURAO,
AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
ALL ARE R/O DEVI NAGAR THANDA,
BHATAMBRA, TQ. BHALKI,
DIST. BIDAR-585 328.
...APPELLANTS
Digitally
signed by
LUCYGRACE
LUCYGRACE Date:
(BY SRI. BASAVARAJ R. MATH, ADVOCATE)
2025.02.14
11:19:03 -
0800
AND:
1. SAI AGENCY REPRESENTED BY
MAHADEV S/O NAMDEV AKANDERI,
AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O 103, B. PRAKASH NAGAR,
CHETAN NIWAS, NEAR NARAHARE CLASSES,
DIST. LATUR-413 512,
(OWNER OF VEHICLE BEARING REG.
NO.MH.24/AU.2438).
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:973
MFA No. 204328 of 2023
2. THE MANAGER,
HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
OPP. K.I.M.S. HOSPITAL GATE, P.B. ROAD,
VEERUPAKSHA BUILDING, VIDYA NAGAR,
HUBLI-580 021,
(VIDE POLICY NO.2315202459132900000,
VALID FROM 18.10.2018 TO 17.10.2019).
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH MALLAYYA SHETTY, ADV. FOR R2;
V/O DTD. 02.01.2024, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ENHANCED THE AWARD
AMOUNT BY MODIFYING THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 14-02-2023 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT., BHALKI IN MVC NO.368/2019.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI)
Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the
respondent No.2.
02. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award
passed in MVC.No.368/2019 by the learned Senior Civil
Judge and Additional MACT, Bhalki, the petitioners are
before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:973
03. The factual matrix of the case is that on
25.05.2019, the son of the petitioners No.1 and 2 and
brother of the petitioner No.3 by name Rahul was traveling
on the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-39-K-9444 and a
Mahindra pick-up vehicle bearing Reg.No.MH-24-AU-2438
came in high speed, rash and negligent manner collided
with the motorcycle, resulting in the deceased - Rahul
sustaining a grievous injuries and later he died in the
hospital. The petitioner alleged that the accident was due
to the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending
vehicle. The deceased was aged about 20 years and had
completed his ITI Training and was a skilled worker. As
such, he was to be appointed at Alfa Infra Equipments
India Private Limited, at Nagapur (Maharastra State) on a
monthly salary of Rs.15,000/-. It is submitted that the
petitioners have lost their bread earner. Therefore, they
are entitled for compensation.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:973
04. The petition was opposed by the respondent
No.2 - insurance company contending that the
compensation claimed is highly exaggerated and
speculative. It denied the age, income and occupation of
the deceased. It was alleged that there was no insurance,
the terms and conditions of the policy were violated. As
such, the respondent No.2 - insurance company is not
liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.
05. The Tribunal framed the appropriate issues and
the father of the deceased was examined as PW.1 and
Ex.P1 to Ex.P.18 were marked. The official of the
respondent No.2 - insurance company was examined as
RW.1 and two witnesses were examined on its behalf as
RW.2 and RW.3 and Ex.R.1 to 12 were marked in the
evidence.
06. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal
considered the notional income of the deceased at
Rs.13,000/- by disbelieving the Ex.P.9 and awarded a total
compensation of Rs.20,60,600/- under the following
heads:-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:973
Sl. Heads Compensation
No. Awarded
1. Medical expenses Rs.40,000/-
2. Loss of dependency and future Rs.19,65,600/-
prospects
Funeral Expenses and
3. Rs.15,000/-
Transportation of dead body
4. Loss of Consortium Rs.20,000/-
5. Loss of Estate Rs.20,000/-
Total Rs.20,60,600/-
07. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners
are before this Court in appeal.
08. The learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners would submit that voluminous documents
regarding the appointment of the deceased and his
educational qualifications produced at Exs.P.9, 10, 11 and
12, were not properly appreciated by the Tribunal. It is
submitted that the deceased - Rahul was a ITI qualified
fitter and he was about to join for his employment on
01.06.2019, but the fate has taken him away from this
world on 25.05.2019. Therefore, he contends that the
income of the deceased as mentioned in Ex.P.9 should
have been considered by the Tribunal.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:973
09. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for
the respondent No.2 - insurance company would submit
that the author of Ex.P.9 has not been examined.
Therefore, the Tribunal is justified in taking the notional
income at Rs.13,000/- per month.
10. The perusal of Ex.P.9 would show that the
deceased was appointed as a fitter on a consolidated
salary of Rs.15,000/- per month, which was to take effect
from 01.06.2019. Even though, Ex.P.9 could have been
brushed aside by the Tribunal on the ground that the
author of the said document is not examined, but the
marks cards produced by the petitioners at Ex.P.10 (which
are 5 in numbers) and the Ex.P.12 certificate issued by
Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship,
wherein he was qualified to be a fitter, the same could not
have been ignored by the Tribunal.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:973
11. In normal circumstances, the notional income
would be considered where there is no proof of either the
qualifications of the deceased or the proof of the income.
When Ex.P.10 and Ex.P.12 clearly mentioned that he was
a skilled fitter and he was to be appointed at the salary of
Rs.15,000/- per month, this Court feels that his
qualifications as a fitter and such skill has not been
properly considered by the Tribunal. Therefore, the
notional income could not have been adopted. In that view
of the matter, the income of the deceased deserves to be
taken at Rs.15,000/- per month. By adding 40%
(Rs.6,000/-) to the same as future prospects the
multiplicand is held at Rs.21,000/- per month. Therefore,
the compensation under the head of loss of dependency is
calculated as Rs.21,000/- x 12 x 18 x 50% =
Rs.22,68,000/-.
12. In addition to the above compensation, the
petitioners are also entitled for the compensation under
the head of loss of love and affection at Rs.52,000/-.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:973
Under the head of funeral expenses at Rs.19,500/-, under
the head of loss of estate at Rs.19,500/- is awarded (by
escalating 10% at every 3 years as held in the case of
National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay
Sethi1).
13. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for total
compensation of Rs.2,98,400/- under the following
heads:-
Sl. Heads Compensation Awarded
No. by this Court
1. Loss of dependency Rs.22,68,000/-
2. Towards consortium Rs.52,000/-
Loss of funeral Rs.19,500/-
3.
expenses
4. Towards loss of Rs.19,500/-
estate
Total Rs.23,59,000/-
Less: Awarded by the Rs.20,60,600/-
Tribunal
Total enhancement Rs.2,98,400/-
14. Hence, appeal deserves to be allowed in part.
Therefore, the following;
(2017) 16 SCC 680
NC: 2025:KHC-K:973
ORDER
I. The appeal is allowed in part.
II. The appellants are entitled for a sum of
Rs.2,98,400/- in addition to what has been awarded
by the Tribunal along with interest at the rate of 6%
p.a. from date of petition till the date of deposit.
III. Rest of the order passed by the Tribunal regarding
apportionment, deposit etc., remain unaltered.
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
KJJ/SBS
CT: AK
