Partly allowed

Sri Divindrappa @ Devappa Herura and Ors. v. Sri Suresh S/O Veerabhadrappa Madagi and Anr.

Karnataka HC21 Oct 2014MFA/200667/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the High Court enhanced compensation to Rs.4,44,000 with interest for the death of a housewife, distinguishing loss of dependency from the junior respondents' clerical error in age, while affirming compensation for consortium and funeral expenses.

What did the court decide?

Appellants entitled to additional sum of Rs.4,44,000 with interest @9% p.a. from date of petition; Rs.4,20,000 to 1st appellant; remainder apportioned to appellants 2 and 3.

Sri Divindrappa @ Devappa Herura and Ors. Vs Sri Suresh S/O Veerabhadrappa Madagi and Anr. — Karnataka HC (2014) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶3

GULBARGA BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2014

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S.PACHHAPURE

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.200667/2014 (MV)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI DEVINDRAPPA @ DEVAPPA HERURA S/O SHEKAPPA HERURA, AGED 56 YEARS, OCC: NILL.

¶10

SRI SHIVAPPA S/O DEVINDRAPPA @ DEVAPPA HERURA, AGED 29 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE.

¶11

SRI RAMU

¶12

S/O DEVINDRAPPA @ DEVAPPA HERURA, AGED 27 YEARS.

¶13

ALL ARE R/O BIDANOOR, TQ. AFZALPUR, DIST. GULBARGA.

¶14

… APPELLANTS

¶15

(BY SRI NAGARAJ B.PATIL, ADV.)

¶16

AND:

¶17

SRI SURESH S/O VEERABHADRAPPA MADAGI, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF LORRY BEARING NO.KA-25/B-2295,

¶18

¶19

R/O H.NO.101, KHB COLONY, SHOLAPUR ROAD, BIJAPUR.

¶20

THE MANAGER LEGAL OFFICER, SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, S-5, 2^ND FLOOR, MONARCH CHAMBER, INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶21

(SRI M. SUDARSHAN, ADV. FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH V/O DTD. 23.04.2014)

¶22

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.02.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.169/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE 1^ST ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE MACT AT GULBARGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION AND AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.25,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A.

¶23

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Though the matter is listed for admission, with

¶26

the consent of the learned counsel for both the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.

¶27

The appellants dissatisfied with the amount of

¶28

compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the death of one Ratnabai, the wife of the 1^st appellant and

¶29

the mother of appellant Nos.2 and 3 in a motor

¶30

¶31

vehicle accident, have filed this appeal, seeking enhancement.

¶32

The facts reveal that on 14.10.2011, due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.KA-25/B-2295, Ratnabai sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. Therefore, her husband – the 1^st appellant and the sons – appellants 2 and 3 made a claim for compensation before the Tribunal.

¶33

After recording the evidence, the Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.25,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. as compensation. Dissatisfied with the said sum, the claimants have filed the present appeal.

¶34

I have heard the learned counsel for both the

¶35

parties.

¶36

The point that arise for my consideration is, Whether the appellants are entitled to the enhanced compensation, if so to what extent?

¶37

¶38

Learned counsel for the appellants would

¶39

submit that the deceased was rendering service as a

¶40

wife and was doing the household work and this aspect of the fact is lost sight by the Tribunal. Therefore, he seeks just compensation for the death of the deceased. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 – the insurer supports the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

¶41

Appellants 2 and 3 are 27 years and 25

¶42

years old respectively. They have attained the age of majority. Therefore, there is no question of loss of dependency so far as appellants 2 and 3 are concerned. The 1^st appellant is the husband of Ratnabai (the deceased). She was 50 years old at the time of the accident. She was rendering service and doing household work and this service of the wife will have to be valued in terms of money to award compensation to the husband. The assessment of such income is on the basis of valuation of her

¶43

¶44

services and it cannot be less than that of a laborer. Taking into consideration the fact that the accident took place in the year 2011, a sum of Rs.5,500/- will have to be considered as value of the services rendered by the wife. As appellants 2 and 3 are the major sons, the personal deductions would be 50%.

¶45

Hence, the loss of dependency would be

¶46

Rs.2,750/- per month. The multiplier applicable is 13. Thereby, the net loss of dependency would be Rs.2,750/- x 12 x 13 = Rs.4,29,000/- . A sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of consortium, a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses appears to be just and reasonable. Thereby, the total compensation payable would be Rs.4,69,000/-.

¶47

Deducting a sum of Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants are entitled to an

¶48

additional sum of Rs.4,44,000/- with interest @ 9%

¶49

¶50

p.a. Accordingly, the point raised is answered in

¶51

affirmative.

¶52

Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part.

¶53

The appellants are entitled to a sum of

¶54

Rs.4,44,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the petition till its payment, in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶55

Out of the aforesaid compensation, a sum of Rs.4,20,000/- shall be paid to the 1^st appellant and the remaining sum shall be apportioned amongst appellants 2 and 3.

¶56

Sd/JUDGE

¶57

Sri Divindrappa @ Devappa Herura and Ors. v. Sri Suresh S/O Veerabhadrappa Madagi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Divindrappa @ Devappa Herura and Ors. v. Sri Suresh S/O Veerabhadrappa Madagi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.Ibrahim Khan S/O Basith Khan Vs the Deputy Commissioner and Anr.

Shri. Abdul S/O Pirasaheb Bukari and Anr. Vs Maheshwari Hospital and Ors.

Sri. Gopal Hallur Vs the State of Karnataka

Durgappa S/O Hanmanth Vs Baswaraj S/O Sidramappa Angadi Anr.

Late Shankar Naik and Ors. Vs B Nabisab S/O Madar Saheb and Anr.

Nargish Fatima Vs the State through