IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. L. NARAYANA SWAMY ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MFA NO. 7462 OF 2016 (MV) BETWEEN:
1.SMT. SAROJAMMA W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/T OF KODIPALYA MATHIGATTA C N HALLI TALUK 2.RATHANAMMA W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/T K R EXTESION TIPTUR NOW RESIDING AT SREENAGARA TUMKURU 3.MANJULA D/O LATE KRISHNAPPA W/O DHANANJAYA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS RESIDING AT SREENAGARA TUMKURU 4.MANJULA K D/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS RESIDING AT SREENAGARA TUMKURU (BY SRI HANUMANTHARAYAPPA K., ADVOCATE) ... APPELLANTS AND 1.MOHAMMED SHAWANAZ PASHA S/O MOHAMAD SHAFIULLA NEAR GOLLARAHALLI J C PURA POST D M KURKE ARASIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT 2.IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. NO.846 NEW KANTHARAJ URS ROAD NEAR AKSHYA BHANDAR KUVEMPUNAGAR MYSURU ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI KESHAVA PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R3 NOTICE TO R1 & 2 DISPENSED WITH ORDER DATED 10.07.2015) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:30.09.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.110/12 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE MACT-10, TUMKUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
...
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The widow and daughters of the deceased Krishnappa who died in a road traffic accident on 29.09.2011 filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. The said claim petition was contested by the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.
2. During enquiry before the Tribunal, the claimants-appellants herein have established the factum of occurrence of accident, actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle bearing No.KA.17 A- 5665 and its insurance with the second respondent herein. The same has remained unchallenged either by the owner or by the insurer.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the income of the deceased taken by the Tribunal at Rs.4,000/- p.m., to determine the compensation payable towards ‘loss dependency’ is on the lower side. Further, the compensation of Rs.35,000/-awarded under conventional head is on lower side. Hence, he seeks for enhancement of compensation.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the second respondent-insurer argued in support of the impugned judgment. Further he submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable does not call for interference.
5. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the accident is of the year 2011. Though it was claimed that deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- p.m. by doing hotel business, there was no documentary proof in support of income of the deceased. Under such circumstances it would be just and appropriate to asses the notional income of the deceased at Rs.7,500/- p.m. Since the deceased was aged about 55 years at the time of accident, 10% is to be added as per dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi. Thus, income of the deceased would comes to Rs. 8,250/-. The family of the deceased consists three members hence 1/3rd is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. Hence, the compensation payable towards ‘loss of dependancy’ would come to Rs.7,26,000/- (Rs.8250X2/3X12X11) as against Rs.3,52,000/-. The compensation of Rs.35,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under conventional heads is on the lower side. It would be just and proper to award a sum of Rs. 70,000/-. Thus, the claimants-appellants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.7,96,000/- as against Rs.3,87,000/-. Consequently, the appeal is liable to be allowed in part.
6. In modification of the impugned judgment and award dated 30.09.2014 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT –X, Tumkur in MVC No.110/2012, the compensation payable to the claimants-appellants is enhanced from Rs. 3,87,000/- to Rs.7,96,000/-. Thus, the enhanced compensation comes to Rs.4,09,000/-. The impugned judgment and award, insofar as it relates to rate of interest, apportionment and deposit is concerned shall remain unaltered.
Office to draw the decree accordingly. No order as to the cost.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE hr