Partly allowed

Smt Jyothi W/O Late Ragavendra v. M K Shivananjaiah

Karnataka HC1 Jun 2015MFA/3783/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellants sought enhancement of motor accident compensation awarded for loss of future dependency due to their husband's death, arguing the Tribunal undervalued the deceased's income against a Government-fixed farmer wage rate.

What did the court decide?

Appellants granted additional compensation of Rs.1,53,000 towards loss of future dependency with interest at 9% p.a. from date of dead-letter of compensation petition

Smt Jyothi W/O Late Ragavendra Vs M K Shivananjaiah — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

MFA No.3783/2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 01^ST DAY OF JUNE, 2015 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE A.S.PACHHAPURE

¶5

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.3783/2014 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT JYOTHI, W/O LATE RAGAVENDRA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS.

¶8

KEERTHANA, D/O LATE RAGAVENDRA, AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS.

¶9

BHARATH, S/O LATE RAGAVENDRA, AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS.

¶10

APPELLANT NOs.2 AND 3 BEING MINORS, R/BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER THE 1^ST APPELLANT.

¶11

ALL ARE R/O SINGANAHALLY VILLAGE, KORATIKERE POST, SANTHEBHACHANAHALLI HOBLI, K.R.PETE TALUK, MANDYA DIST. 571 401.

¶12

… APPELLANTS

¶13

(BY SMT SHARADAMBA.A.R., ADV.)

¶14

AND:

¶15

M.K.SHIVANANJAIAH, S/O KALAIAH,

¶16

¶17

MFA No.3783/2014

¶18

AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O MOODANAHALLY VILLAGE, ALENAHALLY POST, AKKIHEBBALU HOBLI, K.R.PETE TALUK, MANDYA DIST – 571 401. (DRIVER OF TRACTOR AND TRAILOR BEARING REGN. NO.KA-11/T-4626 AND 4627). 2. KALEGOWDA, S/O SUBBEEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O KADUMENASA VILLAGE, KUNDUR POST, KASABA HOBLI, K.R.PET TALUK, MANDYA DIST – 571 401. (OWNER OF TRACTOR AND TRAILOR BEARING REGN. NO.KA-11/T-4626 AND 4627).

¶19

THE BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., DO.NO.1576, 1^ST FLOOR, V.V.ROAD, MANDYA – 571 401.

¶20

BHAGYAMMA, W/O NANJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O SINGANAHALLY VILLAGE, KORATIKERE POST, SANTHEBHACHANAHALLI HOBLI, K.R.PETE TALUK, MANDYA DIST. 571 401.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI B.C.SEETHARAMA RAO, ADV. FOR R3, SMT SPOORTHY HEDGE.N., ADV. FOR R4, NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 DISPENSED WITH)

¶23

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 1.2.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.108/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC,

¶24

¶25

MFA No.3783/2014

¶26

K.R.PET, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶27

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

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

The appellants dissatisfied with the amount of

¶30

compensation awarded for the death of the husband of appellant No.1, have filed this appeal seeking enhancement.

¶31

The facts reveal that due to rash and negligent driving of Tractor and Trailor bearing registration No.KA-11/T-4626 and 4627, an accident occurred and Raghavendra, the husband of appellant No.1 died due to the injuries sustained. His legal representatives being the wife, children and mother made a claim for compensation.

¶32

The Tribunal after recording the evidence,

¶33

assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month and granted a sum of Rs.7,65,000/- as

¶34

compensation towards ‘loss of future dependency’ by adopting proper multiplier. It granted reasonable

¶35

¶36

MFA No.3783/2014

¶37

compensation on the other heads. Dissatisfied with the sum awarded by the Tribunal, the present appeal is filed.

¶38

Heard the learned counsel for both the

¶39

parties.

¶40

Learned counsel for the appellants submits

¶41

that assessment of the income by the Tribunal at Rs.5,000/- per month is on the lower side and it needs enhancement.

¶42

On the other hand, learned counsel for the

¶43

insurer supports the judgment and award.

¶44

Perusal of the material placed on record reveals that the appellants have relied upon the notification issued by the Government, wherein the minimum wages of the farmer has to be considered at Rs.6,000/- per month. This notification is not accepted by the Tribunal. No reasons have been

¶45

assigned to overcome the said publication. So far as the income from hulling machine, there is no material

¶46

¶47

MFA No.3783/2014

¶48

placed on record to prove the same. For this reason, the Tribunal has not considered the income from the hulling machine. But anyhow, it is relevant to note that when the Government itself has considered the income of a farmer at Rs.6,000/- per month, grant of compensation towards ‘loss of future dependency’ with the income at Rs.5,000/- per month appears to be improper. Therefore, the compensation towards ‘loss of future dependency’ has to be enhanced with the income at the rate of Rs.6,000/per month. Therefore, total compensation towards ‘loss of future dependency’ would be Rs.9,18,000/-. Deducting a sum of Rs.7,65,000/- from Rs.9,18,000/-, the appellants are entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.1,53,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. As the compensation granted on the other heads are just and proper, the appellants are entitled for the aforesaid enhanced compensation.

¶49

7. Therefore, the appeal is allowed-in-part.

¶50

The appellants are entitled to the compensation of

¶51

¶52

MFA No.3783/2014

¶53

Rs.1,53,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till its payment in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶54

Sri B.C.Seetharama Rao, advocate is permitted

¶55

to file vakalath within fifteen days.

¶56

Sd/JUDGE

¶57

Smt Jyothi W/O Late Ragavendra v. M K Shivananjaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Jyothi W/O Late Ragavendra v. M K Shivananjaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State by P S I Vs v Ramesh Bairy

The State of Karnataka Vs Venkatesh S/O Veeranagappa

Gopal K.T. @ Gopi Vs State by Kunigal Police

The Managing Director Vs Sri Basavaiah

Shivashankar @ Shivakumar Vs Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Sri Mohan Rao Vs a Saravanan