Karnataka High Court
Hanamawwa vs Parashuram And Anr on 7 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:45
MFA No. 201282 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201282 OF 2018 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
HANAMAWWA W/O YAMANAPPA KATTIMANI,
SINCE DIED BY LRS.
1. MALKAPPA
S/O LATE YAMANAPPA KATTIMANI,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
2. KAREMMA
D/O LATE YAMANAPPA KATTIMANI,
W/O TIPPANNA MALLI,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
3. SHARANAPPA @ SHARANBASAPPA
S/O LATE YAMANAPPA KATTIMANI
Digitally signed
by SINCE DIED BY LR/WIFE
LUCYGRACE
Location: HIGH GOURAMMA
COURT OF W/O SHARANAPPA @ SHARANBASAPPA,
KARNATAKA
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
ALL R/O MALLI (S MALLI),
TQ. JEWARGI, NOW YADRAMI,
DIST. KALABURAGI.
(IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER OF COURT
DATED 24-11-2022)
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. B.M. KINIKERI, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:45
MFA No. 201282 of 2018
AND:
1. PARASHURAM
S/O BHEEMARAYA @ BHEEMAPPA BHAJANTRI,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER CUM OWNER OF
VEHICLE NO.KA-28/A-4415,
R/O CHIKKAROOGI, TQ. INDI,
NOW AT GOLAGERI, TQ. SINDAGI,
DIST. VIJAYAPURA.
2. THE MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
JAWALI COMPLEX, SUPER MARKET,
KALABURAGI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.S. ASPALLI, ADV. FOR R2;
V/O DTD. 24.11.2022, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING THAT THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 28.10.2016 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND MACT, JEWARGI IN MVC NO.436/2013 MAY
KINDLY MODIFIED AND THE TOP NOTED APPEAL MAY KINDLY
BE ALLOWED AND AWARD THE COMPENSATION AS PRAYED IN
THE CLAIM PETITION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:45
MFA No. 201282 of 2018
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI)
By the consent of both the counsel, the matter is
taken up for final disposal though it is at the stage of
admission.
Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated
28.10.2016 passed in MVC No.436/2013 by the learned
Senior Civil Judge and Member, MACT, Jewargi, the
claimant approached this Court in this appeal, seeking
enhancement of compensation on account of death of her
husband in a road traffic accident. During pendency of this
appeal, the appellant died and her legal representatives
are brought on record.
2. By the impugned judgment, the Tribunal has
awarded a sum of Rs.4,16,000/- as compensation together
with interest at 6% p.a. and directed the insurance
company to deposit the same.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:45
3. It is the case of the original appellant that her
husband was aged about 65 years at the time of his death
and he died in a road traffic accident involving the vehicle
bearing No.KA-28/A-4415, which was insured by
respondent No.2-United India Insurance Company
Limited. The Tribunal in the impugned judgment has taken
the notional income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per
month and calculated the loss of dependency. It is
submitted that the notional income adopted by the
Tribunal is on the lower side and therefore, there is a need
for interference.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both the
parties.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has
submitted that the income of the deceased was not
properly considered by the Tribunal and the compensation
as per the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in National
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and
NC: 2025:KHC-K:45
others1 was not adhered with and that the Tribunal has
awarded the compensation, which is much less than the
adequate and just compensation.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
Insurance Company has defended the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal under different heads.
7. The fact that there was an accident involving the
Tata Ace vehicle owned by respondent No.1 and insured
by respondent No.2 is not in dispute. It is only the
quantum of the compensation which is the subject matter
of this appeal.
8. The short point that arise for consideration is,
whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on
account of death of husband of the original appellant
Hanamawwa is proper and correct?
9. The Tribunal has taken the notional income of the
deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month. The guidelines issued
(2017) 16 SCC 680
NC: 2025:KHC-K:45
by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority in respect
of the settlement of the claims arising out the motor
vehicle accidents before the Lok Adalath prescribe that the
notional income for the year 2013 is Rs.7,000/- per
month. This Court in umpteen number of cases has held
that the said guidelines issued by the KSLSA for
settlement of claims in Lok Adalath is in conformity with
the minimum wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act.
Therefore, the notional income of the deceased has to be
considered at Rs.7,000/- per month.
10. The Tribunal has considered the Multiplier of 7
based on the age of the deceased as 65 years. Therefore,
the said multiplier appears to be correct and there is no
dispute in respect of the multiplier.
11. Hence, the loss of dependency is calculated as:
Rs.7,000/- x 12 x 7 x 2/3 = 3,92,000/- by deducting the
personal expenses of the deceased at 1/3rd of his income.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:45
12. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/-
under the head of loss of consortium and Rs.20,000/-
under the head funeral and transportation expenses. In
view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's
case cited supra, the loss of consortium has to be
restricted to Rs.40,000/- and the expenses regarding
obsequies and loss of estate have to be escalated at the
rate of 10% for every three years. Taking these guidelines
issued by the Apex Court, the compensation under these
heads is assessed at Rs.84,700/-.
13. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants
submits that the loss of consortium should also be
awarded to the children of the deceased, who have come
on record in the present appeal by virtue of an application
filed under Order 22 Rule 3 of CPC. It is obvious that the
children of the original appellant had neither appeared
before the Tribunal, nor they have filed any application
under Order I Rule 10 of CPC claiming their independent
right. Under these circumstances, the independent right
NC: 2025:KHC-K:45
of the legal representatives of the original appellant cannot
be entertained.
14. In that view of the matter, the appeal deserves
to be allowed in part only in respect of enhancement of the
compensation amount as discussed above. Hence, the
following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award passed by
the Tribunal is modified by awarding a sum of
Rs.4,76,700/- instead of Rs.4,16,000/- awarded by the
Tribunal, together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date
of petition till its deposit.
(iii) Rest of the order of the Tribunal stands
unaltered.
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
LG
