Karnataka High Court
Sharath S/O Balakistaiah Goud vs T.Balakistaiah Goud S/O Narayan Goud ... on 23 January, 2025
Author: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:429-DB
MFA No.201727/2015
C/W MFA No.200854/2015
MFA No.200870/2016
MFA No.201126/2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201727 OF 2015 (MV-D)
C/W
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200854 OF 2015
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200870 OF 2016
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201126 OF 2016
IN M.F.A. NO.201727 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
1. SUSHEELA
W/O T. BALRAJ
Digitally signed
by RAMESH AGE: 49 YEARS,
MATHAPATI OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. T.BALRAJ
S/O USHAIAH,
AGE: 54 YEARS,
OCC: DY. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
BOTH ARE R/O: H.NO.2-89,
INDRA NAGAR COLONY,
JADCHERLA, DIST: MEHABOOB NAGAR.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI KRUPASAGAR PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:429-DB
MFA No.201727/2015
C/W MFA No.200854/2015
MFA No.200870/2016
MFA No.201126/2016
AND:
1. T. BALAKISTAIAH GOUD
S/O NARAYANGOUD,
AGE: 56 YEARS,
OCC: OWNER OF TAVERA
JEEP No.AP 09-AZ-2727,
R/O: H.NO.1-80, BANDAMEEDI PALLY,
DIST.MEHABOOB NAGAR (AP)-509 001.
2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
JAWALI COMPLEX, SUPER MARKET,
GULBARGA - 585 101.
THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER.
3. SHIVASHARAN
S/O REVAN SIDDAPPA CHANGOL
AGE: 43 YEARS,
OCC: OWNER OF LORRY
BEARING REG. NO.KA-28-1186,
R/O: H.NO.2-120, HIPPARGA
TQ: JEWARGI,
DIST: GULBARGA - 585 310.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.S. ASPALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI DEEPAK V. BARAD, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
NOTICE TO R1 SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL, THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.04.2015 IN
M.V.C.NO.55/2014 PASSED BY THE MEMBER M.A.C.T., II, AT
YADGIRI, MAY KINDLY BE MODIFIED BY ENHANCING THE
COMPENSATION AS CLAIMED IN THE CLAIM PETITION, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:429-DB
MFA No.201727/2015
C/W MFA No.200854/2015
MFA No.200870/2016
MFA No.201126/2016
IN M.F.A. NO.200854 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
JAWALI COMPLEX,
SUPER MARKET,
GULBARGA.
THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI S.S. ASPALLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SUSHEELA
W/O T. BALRAJ
AGE: 49 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
2. T.BALRAJ
S/O: USHAIAH,
AGE: 54 YEARS,
OCC: DY. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
BOTH ARE R/O: H.NO.2-89,
INDRA NAGAR COLONY,
JADCHERLA,
DIST: MEHABOOB NAGAR - 509 001.
3. T. BALAKISTAIAH GOUD
S/O NARAYANGOUD,
AGE: 56 YEARS,
OCC: OWNER OF TAVERA JEEP
BEARING REG. NO.AP 09-AZ-2727,
R/O: H.NO.1-80, BANDAMEEDI PALLY,
DIST.MEHABOOB NAGAR (AP)-509 001.
4. SHIVASHARAN
S/O REVANSIDDAPPA CHANGOL
AGE: 43 YEARS,
OCC: OWNER OF LORRY
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:429-DB
MFA No.201727/2015
C/W MFA No.200854/2015
MFA No.200870/2016
MFA No.201126/2016
BEARING REG. NO.KA-28-1186,
R/O: H.NO.2-120, HIPPARGA
TQ: JEWARGI, DIST: GULBARGA - 585 310.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI DEEPAK V. BARAD, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
NOTICE TO R1, R2, R3 ARE SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.04.2015 IN
M.V.C.NO.55/2014 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
M.A.C.T.-II - YADGIRI BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE APPEAL IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN M.F.A. NO.200870 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
JAWALI COMPLEX, SUPER MARKET,
GULBARGA.
THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI S.S. ASPALLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHARATH
S/O BALAKISTAIAH GOUD,
AGE: 25 YEARS,
OCC: ENGINEER STUDENT
R/O: H.NO.1-80, BANDAMEEDI PALLY,
DISTRICT MEHABOOB NAGAR
TELANGANA STATE - 509 001.
2. T. BALAKISTAIAH GOUD
S/O NARAYANGOUD,
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:429-DB
MFA No.201727/2015
C/W MFA No.200854/2015
MFA No.200870/2016
MFA No.201126/2016
AGE: 57 YEARS,
OCC: OWNER OF TAVERA JEEP
BEARING REG. NO.AP 09-AZ-2727,
R/O: H.NO.1-80, BANDAMEEDI PALLY,
DISTRICT MEHABOOB NAGAR,
TELANGANA STATE - 509 001.
3. SHIVASHARAN
S/O REVANSIDDAPPA CHANGOL
AGE: 44 YEARS,
OCC: OWNER OF LORRY
BEARING REG. NO.KA-28-1186,
R/O: H.NO.2-120, HIPPARGA
TQ: JEWARGI,
DIST: KALABURAGI - 585 310.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI DEEPAK V. BARAD, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.02.2016 IN
M.V.C.NO.232/2014 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
M.A.C.T.-II - YADGIRI BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE APPEAL IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN M.F.A.NO.201126 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
SHARATH
S/O BALAKISTAIAH GOUD,
AGE: 25 YEARS,
OCC: ENGINEER STUDENT
R/O: H.NO.1-80, BANDAMEEDI PALLY,
DISTRICT MEHABOOB NAGAR
TELANGANA STATE - 509 001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.KRUPA SAGAR PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:429-DB
MFA No.201727/2015
C/W MFA No.200854/2015
MFA No.200870/2016
MFA No.201126/2016
AND:
1. T. BALAKISTAIAH GOUD
S/O NARAYANGOUDA,
AGE: 57 YEARS,
OCC: OWNER OF TAVERA JEEP
BEARING REG. NO.AP 09-AZ-2727,
R/O: H.NO.1-80, BANDAMEEDI PALLY,
DISTRICT MEHABOOB NAGAR,
TELANGANA STATE - 509 001.
2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
JAWALI COMPLEX, SUPER MARKET,
KALABURAGI - 585 102.
THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER.
3. SHIVASHARAN
S/O REVAN SIDDAPPA CHANGOL
AGE: 44 YEARS,
OCC: OWNER OF LORRY
BEARING REG. NO.KA-28-1186,
R/O: H.NO.2-120, HIPPARGA
TQ: JEWARGI,
DIST: KALABURAGI - 585 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.S.ASPALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 SERVED; NOTICE TO R3 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL, THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.02.2016 IN
M.V.C.NO.232/2014 ON THE FILE OF MEMBER M.A.C.T.-II, AT
YADGIRI, MAY KINDLY BE MODIFIED BY ENHANCING THE
COMPENSATION AS CLAIMED IN THE CLAIM PETITION, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THESE MFA's COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:429-DB
MFA No.201727/2015
C/W MFA No.200854/2015
MFA No.200870/2016
MFA No.201126/2016
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K)
MFA No.201727/2015 and MFA No.200854/2015
have been filed against the judgment and award dated
13.04.2015 passed by the Member MACT-II, Yadgiri in
MVC No.55/2014. MFA No.201727/2015 is filed by the
claimants who are the parents of deceased Priyanka
seeking enhancement of compensation and Insurance
Company has filed MFA No.200854/2015 to set aside the
impugned judgment and award.
2. Similarly, MFA No.201126/2016 and MFA
No.200870/2016 have been filed against the judgment
and award dated 20.02.2016 passed by the Member
MACT-II, Yadgiri in MVC No.232/2014. MFA
No.201126/2016 has been filed by the injured-claimant
seeking enhancement of compensation and Insurance
Company has filed MFA No.200870/2016 to set aside the
impugned judgment and award.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:429-DB
3. The facts apposite for consideration of these
appeals which are borne out from the pleadings are as
under:
On 13.12.2013 at about 1.45 p.m., on Yadgiri-
Hyderabad main road, near KSRTC workshop, one
Priyanka i.e., the daughter of claimants in MVC
No.55/2014 was proceeding in a Tavera Jeep bearing
No.AP-09/AZ-2727 from the side of Mahaboobnagar
towards Wadi, at that time, the driver of the jeep drove
the same with high speed in a rash and negligent manner
and dashed to the lorry bearing registration No.KA-
28/1186. Due to the said impact, Priyanka sustained
grievous injuries and she was shifted to Government
Hospital, Raichur and thereafter, to Suraksha Hospital,
Raichur, however, she succumbed to the injuries.
4. As such, Rural Police, Yadgiri registered a case
in Crime No.281/2013 against both the driver of the jeep
so also the driver of the lorry. Since death of the deceased
was due to road traffic accident, her parents filed MVC
NC: 2025:KHC-K:429-DB
No.55/2014 claiming compensation against the driver of
Tavera Jeep, the Insurance Company of the jeep and so
also the owner of the Lorry.
5. The claimant in MVC No.232/2014 was also
traveling in the same jeep and he also sustained injuries
due to the accident. As such, he also filed a claim petition
in MVC No.232/2014 before the very same Tribunal
against the driver of the jeep, Insurance Company of the
jeep and owner of the Lorry.
6. To prove the claim of the claimants in MVC
No.55/2014, the claimant No.2 was examined as P.W.1 so
also got marked 21 documents as Ex.P1 to P21. The
officer of the Insurance Company was examined as RW.1
and got marked 01 document i.e., Ex.R.1.
7. To prove the claim of the injured-claimant in
MVC No.232/2014, the claimant himself was examined as
P.W.1 so also examined the doctor as P.W.2 and got
marked 08 documents as per Ex.P1 to P8. However, the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:429-DB
Insurance Company has not examined any witness nor
marked any documents.
8. After assessment of oral and documentary
evidence, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petitions
and granted compensation of Rs.6,67,440/- with interest
at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till
realization of the amount against the respondents in MVC
No.55/2014. It is also ordered that the respondent Nos.1
to 3 are jointly and severally liable for payment of
compensation.
9. Similarly, in MVC No.232/2014, the Tribunal
awarded compensation of Rs.1,84,600/- with interest at
the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till
realization of the amount against the respondents. It is
ordered that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and
severally liable for payment of compensation.
10. Being dissatisfied with the same, these two
judgments and awards are challenged by the respective
claimants and the Insurance Company. Though the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:429-DB
judgment and award is passed separately by the Tribunal,
the matters are clubbed together for the reason that the
accident in question is one and the same in both the claim
petitions and therefore, these appeals are taken up for
final disposal.
11. We have heard the learned counsel for the
claimants so also learned counsel for Insurance Company.
12. The primary contention of the learned counsel
for the appellants/claimants in MFA No.201727/2015 is
that the Tribunal erred in granting lesser compensation.
The Tribunal has not considered the aspect that the
deceased Priyanka was pursuing her fourth year of
Engineering Degree and she was a potential student. To
substantiate the same, the claimants marked Ex.P7 i.e,
the bonafide/study certificate before the Tribunal.
Nevertheless, she was earning Rs.6,000/- per month
through her tuition classes. It is also contended that the
Tribunal also erred while granting lesser compensation
under other heads. He would also contend that the
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:429-DB
Tribunal also erred by directing the respondent Nos.1 to 3
to pay compensation jointly and severally without passing
an order to pay the compensation by the Insurance
Company.
13. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant in
MFA No.201126/2016 submits that the Tribunal erred
while granting compensation by not considering the
evidence of doctor and also the disability sustained by him
and not placing reliance on Ex.P6 i.e., disability certificate.
Accordingly, the learned counsel for the
appellants/claimants in both the appeals prays to allow the
appeals by enhancing the compensation.
14. Per contra, learned counsel for the appellant-
Insurance Company in MFA No.200854/2015 and MFA
No.200870/2016 submits that the accident occurred due
to head on collision and both the vehicles involved in the
accident have contributed in causing the accident. Though
the said aspect was appreciated and relied by the Tribunal,
there is no apportionment of liability and negligence.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:429-DB
Further, the claimants failed to place any evidence or
document to substantiate their income. In such
circumstance, the Tribunal was justified in considering
income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month since the
year of the accident was 2013. He also contends that
though the charge sheet was filed against the lorry driver,
he did not possess the driving license at the time of
accident and accordingly, the owner of the said lorry needs
to be held liable. In such circumstance, the Tribunal ought
to have fixed entire liability against the owner of the Lorry.
He would also contend that the Tribunal has rightly
considered the notional income of the injured claimant at
Rs.6,000/- per month. With these submissions, he prays
to allow the appeals filed by the Insurance Company by
dismissing the appeals filed by the claimants.
15. To buttress his submission, he relied on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Meena Pawaia and others vs. Ashraf Ali and others
reported in 2022 ACJ 528, so also the judgment in the
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:429-DB
case of IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company
Limited vs. Kalaiselvi and others reported in 2024 ACJ
1061.
16. Having heard the learned counsel for the
respective parties so also perusal of the documents and
reliance placed by them before us, the points that would
arise for our consideration are:
1. Whether the Tribunal is justified in
awarding the compensation of
Rs.6,67,440/- in MVC No.55/2014 and
Rs.1,84,600/- in MVC No.232/2014?
2. Whether the Tribunal is justified in not
passing an order on apportionment of the
compensation?
3. What order?
17. As could be seen from the records, it is not in
dispute that the accident was caused on 13.12.2013 due
to head on collision of the jeep with lorry bearing
registration No.KA-28/1186. Further, it is also not in
dispute that the deceased and injured were travelling in
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:429-DB
the said jeep. Due to the accident, deceased-Priyanka
succumbed to the injuries and injured claimant sustained
injuries. It is also not in dispute that said Tavera Jeep was
insured with the Insurance Company. Moreover, the
jurisdictional police registered FIR in Crime No.281/2013
and thereafter, after a detailed investigation, laid charge
sheet against both the driver of the jeep so also the driver
of the lorry. As such, it is clear that, both the drivers of
the vehicles have contributed in causing the accident.
18. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Khenyei
vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and
others reported in (2015) 3 SCC(Cri.) 766 held in
paragraph No.3 as under:
"3. It is a case of composite negligence
where injuries have been caused to the claimants
by combined wrongful act of joint tortfeasors. In
a case of accident caused by negligence of joint
tortfeasors, all the persons who aid or counsel or
direct or join in committal of a wrongful act, are
liable. In such case, the liability is always joint
and several. The extent of negligence of joint
tort feasors in such a case is immaterial for
satisfaction of the claim of the plaintiff/claimant
and need not be determined by the court.
However, in case all the joint tortfeasors are
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:429-DB
before the court, it may determine the extent of
their liability for the purpose of adjusting inter-se
equities between them at appropriate stage. The
liability of each and every joint tortfeasor vis-à-
vis to plaintiff/claimant cannot be bifurcated as it
is joint and several liability. In the case of
composite negligence, apportionment of
compensation between tortfeasors for making
payment to the plaintiff is not permissible as the
plaintiff/claimant has the right to recover the
entire amount from the easiest targets/solvent
defendant."
19. On perusal of the findings of the Hon'ble Apex
Court, it is clear that the claimants are entitled to file claim
petition against any one of the joint tortfeasors. It could
be seen from the records that there is contributory
negligence on the part of both the drivers of the vehicles.
As such, both are liable to pay the compensation equally.
However, in the case on hand, Insurance Company of the
offending vehicle-lorry was not arrayed as a party and the
owner of the said lorry was made a party. In such
circumstance, both the Insurance Company of the jeep as
well as the owner of the lorry are liable to pay 50% each
of the compensation to the claimants. However, the
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:429-DB
Tribunal while awarding the compensation held that all the
respondents i.e., the driver of the jeep, the Insurance
Company of the jeep and the owner of the lorry are jointly
and severally liable to pay compensation and directed to
deposit the compensation within 60 days from the
judgment. This finding of the Tribunal is not justifiable for
the reason that once the negligence and liability is equally
fixed on both the vehicles, the Tribunal ought to have
made the apportionment of the compensation equally and
would have directed to deposit the compensation by the
Insurance Company of the jeep with a liberty to recover
50% of the compensation from the owner of the offending
lorry.
20. Insofar as quantum of compensation awarded
by the Tribunal in MFA No.201727/2015: It is the
contention of the learned counsel for the claimants in MVC
No.55/2014 that the Tribunal has not considered the
aspect that the deceased was studying in her fourth/final
year of Engineering Degree and she was a potential
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:429-DB
student and had a bright future and she would have
earned a handsome salary. In fact, the claimants have
placed Ex.P7, i.e., her study certificate to substantiate the
said aspect. Moreover, it is contended that she was
earning Rs.10,000/- per month from her tuition classes. It
is submitted that there is ample scope and vast
employment opportunity for the stream of education that
was being pursued by the deceased-Priyanka. In such
circumstance, this Court is of the view that the deceased
would have secured job immediately on completion of her
studies. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal has erred
in fixing Rs.6,000/- per month as notional income. There
can be many a slip between the cup and lip, ifs and buts
do not form conclusive proof. Our view is fortified by the
judgment rendered by the co-ordinate bench of this Court
in the case of Divisional Managar, The National
Insurance Company Limited vs. Laxmi bai and
Another in MFA No.201712/2014 disposed of on
11.12.2015. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of S.Vasanti and Another vs. M/s.Adhiparasakthi
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:429-DB
Engg, College and Another in Civil Appeal
No.7180/2022 arising out of SLP (C) No.10206/2020,
while granting compensation for the death of qualified
engineering graduate had observed that he would have
surely drawn a salary equivalent to that of his classmates
or atleast an amount near the said amount. Further,
observing that no parents should have to suffer through
the death of their children, enhanced the monthly income
to Rs.30,000/-. Placing reliance on these judgments, we
are of the view that the Tribunal erred while considering
the notional income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- and the
same has to be enhanced at-least to Rs.20,000/- per
month.
21. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company
vehemently contended that in the claim petition before the
Tribunal and in the appeal memo filed before this Court,
the claimants have stated that monthly income of the
deceased at Rs.10,000/- As such, they are not entitled for
any enhancement. However, mere claiming lesser
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:429-DB
compensation by the claimants is not a bar to grant higher
compensation regardless of the claim made by the
claimants. This aspect of the matter was settled by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramla and others vs.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others reported in
(2019) 2 SCC 192, wherein it is held in paragraph-5 that
there is no restriction that the Court cannot award
compensation exceeding the claim amount since the
function of the Tribunal or Court under section 168 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is to award "just compensation".
The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare
legislation. A just compensation is one which is reasonable
based on the evidence produced, it cannot be said to have
become time barred. There is no need for a new course of
action to claim an enhanced amount if the Courts are duty
bound to award just compensation.
22. By applying the above principle laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court to the facts and circumstances of
the present case, we are of the view that awarding
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:429-DB
compensation by increasing notional income of the
deceased is not a bar to claim more compensation before
this Court in the present miscellaneous first appeals.
23. However, the Tribunal has erred while adding
50% towards future prospects, since accident is of the
year 2013. Hence, in view of the judgment of the Apex
Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi
reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, 40% of the income of
the deceased has to be added towards future prospects.
The deceased was aged about 23 years as on the date of
the accident and the Tribunal has adopted multiplier of '13'
instead of applying the multiplier of '18' as per the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported
in (2009) 6 SCC 121.
24. Since the deceased was bachelor at the time of
accident, 50% of the income has to be deducted towards
her personal expenses. Therefore, considering the above
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:429-DB
factors, the appellants are entitled to a sum of
Rs.30,24,000/- [Rs.20,000/- + 40% (Rs.8,000/-)
=Rs.28,000/- less 50% (Rs.14,000/-) = Rs.1,4000 x 12 x
18] as compensation under the head 'loss of dependency'.
25. Further, in view of the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General
Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram Alias
Chuhru Ram & Others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130,
petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- each
towards loss of consortium. The petitioners are the
parents of the deceased, hence the compensation towards
loss of consortium would be Rs.80,000/- (40,000 x 2). In
addition, the petitioners are entitled to a sum of
Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/-
under the head of loss of estate. The compensation
granted by the Tribunal under the head of medical
expenses of Rs.5,640/-is retained.
26. Thus, in all, the petitioners are entitled to a
sum of Rs.31,39,640/- as against Rs.6,67,440/- awarded
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:429-DB
by the Tribunal along with interest at the rate of 6% per
annum.
IN MFA No.201126/2016:
23. Though, it is the case of the petitioner that the
petitioner was an Engineering student and also doing tutor
work and used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month, however, in
order to substantiate the same, the petitioner has not
produced any income proof. In the absence of proof of
income, the Tribunal has assessed income of the petitioner
at Rs.6,000/- per month. The accident is of the year 2013.
As per the Chart provided by the Karnataka Legal Services
Authority, the notional income of the petitioner would be
Rs.7,000/- per month. The petitioner is aged about 23 years
at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his
age group is '18' which is rightly taken by the Tribunal.
24. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/-
under the head pain and suffering and Rs.20,000/- under the
head of loss of amenities. In our considered view, the same
is on the lower side and is enhanced to Rs.40,000/- and
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:429-DB
Rs.25,000/- respectively. Further, the Tribunal has not
granted any compensation towards loss of income during laid
up period. Having regard to the nature of injuries suffered
by the petitioner, it would be just and proper to award a sum
of Rs.7,000/- as compensation under this head. The
compensation of Rs.5,000/- awarded towards medical
expenses is retained.
25. Considering the monthly income of the petitioner
at Rs.7,000/- and the other factors i.e., the computation of
disability of the petitioner at 10% which is rightly taken by
the Tribunal and having regard to the injury, the petitioner is
entitled to compensation of Rs.1,51,200/- (Rs.7,000/- x 12 x
18 x 10%) on account of 'loss of future income'.
27. Thus, in all, the petitioner is entitled to a sum of
Rs.2,28,200/- as against Rs.1,84,600/- awarded by the
Tribunal along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
26. Hence, in MFA No.201727/2015, the claimants
are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.24,72,200/-
along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:429-DB
Likewise, the claimant in MFA No.201126/2016 is entitled
to enhanced compensation of Rs.43,600/- along with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
27. In that view of the matter, we answer point
Nos.1 and 2 raised above in the Negative and point No.3
as follows:
ORDER
(a) The appeals filed by the claimants in MFA
Nos.201727/2015 and 201126/2016 and
Insurance Company in MFA
Nos.200854/2015 and 200870/2016 are
allowed in part.
(b) The appellants in MFA No.201727/2015 are
entitled to enhanced compensation of
Rs.24,72,200/- along with interest at the
rate of 6% p.a. from the date of claim
petition till the date of realization of
amount.
(c) The appellant in MFA No.201126/2016 is
entitled to enhanced compensation of
Rs.43,600/- along with interest at the rate
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:429-DB
of 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition
till the date of realization of amount.
(d) Insofar liability is concerned, the owner of
the Lorry and the Insurance company of the
Jeep are equally liable to pay compensation
in the ratio of 50:50 each.
(e) The Insurance company is directed to
deposit the entire compensation amount in
both the cases within a period of eight
weeks from the date of receipt of copy of
this judgment and recover 50% of the
amount from the owner of the lorry i.e.,
respondent No.3 before the Tribunal in both
claim petitions.
(f) The amount in deposit, if any, shall be
remitted to the Tribunal.
(g) Office is directed to send back the trial
Court records to the Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/-
(S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
VNR/BL
