Partly allowed

Krishna Naik S/O Seena Naik v. Siddappa Adavi S/O Parasappa Adavi

Karnataka HC21 Oct 2019MFA/100505/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment disposed of two miscellaneous first appeals against motor accident claims awards. The court dismissed the appeal by the injured claimant (Krishna Naik) due to lack of evidence but enhanced the compensation for the legal representatives of the deceased wife by applying Supreme Court guidelines on loss of dependency, consortium, and estate.

What did the court decide?

The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal was modified to Rs. 9,97,200/- including loss of dependency, consortium, estate, and funeral expenses, with a direction for deposit by the insurance comp

Krishna Naik S/O Seena Naik Vs Siddappa Adavi S/O… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^st DAY OF OCTOBER 2019

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.100505 of 2016 c/w MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.101710 of 2015 (MV)

¶7

IN MFA NO.100505 OF 2016 BETWEEN

¶8

KRISHNA NAIK S/O SEENA NAIK AGE:46 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE R/O BANDE BASAPURA TANDA HOSPET, TQ. HOSPET, DIST. BALLARI

¶9

... APPELLANT

¶10

(By Sri. M. AMARE GOUDA, ADV.)

¶11

AND

¶12

SIDDAPPA ADAVI S/O PARASAPPA ADAVI AGED ABOUT:46 YEARS, OCC. BUS DRIVER, INDI DEPOT (NWKRTC), BIJAPUR DISTRICT

¶13

DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER NWKRTC HBL BIJAPUR DIVISION, BIJAPUR

¶14

... RESPONDENTS

¶15

(By Sri. S.C. BHUTI, ADV. FOR R2. RESPONDENT NO.1 SERVED)

¶16

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & AWARD DATED:21.07.2015, PASSED IN MVC.NO.270/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, HOSAPETE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR

¶17

¶18

COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶19

IN BET	MFA NO.101710 OF 2015 WEEN
1.	KRISHNA NAIK S/O. SEENA NAIK AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE R/O. BANDE BASAPURA TANDA
2.	KUMARNAIK S/O. KRISHNA NAIK AGE: 24 YEARS
3.	KUM. SARITHA D/O. KRISHNA NAIK AGE: 22 YEARS
4.	KUM. LALITHA D/O. KRISHNA NAIK AGE: 19 YEARS
5.	KUM. PAVITHRA D/O. KRISHNA NAIK AGE: 12 YEARS
6.	KUM. RASHIKA D/O. KRISHNA NAIK AGE: 10 YEARS
ALL TQ:	ARE R/O. BANDE BASAPURA TANDA HOSPET, HOSPET DIST: BALLARI ... APPELLANTS
(By	Sri. M. AMARE GOUDA, ADV.)
AND	:
1.	SIDDAPA ADAVI S/O. PARASAPPA ADAVI AGE: BUS DRIVER, INDI DEPOT (NWKRTC) VIJAYAPUR DISTRICT
2. (By	DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NWKRTC. HBL VIJAYAPUR DIVISION, VIJAYAPUR ... RESPONDENTS Sri. S.C. BHUTI, ADV. FOR R2.

¶20

¶21

NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)

¶22

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:08.11.2010, PASSED IN MVC NO.398/2010, ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC., HOSPET, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶23

THESE MFAs COMING ON FOR HEARING ON I.A. AND ADMISSION, RESPECTIVELY, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Miscellaneous First Appeal No.100505 of 2016 is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 21.07.2015 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Hospet, in MVC No.270 of 2012 whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.13,000/- with interest at 9% per annum.

¶26

Brief facts of the case are that on 21.02.2009 at about 3.45 am, one Krishna Naikpetitioner No.1 and his family members were proceeding in a bullock cart near Magimavinahalli cross. At that time, the driver of the KSRTC bus bearing registration

¶27

¶28

No.KA-28/F-1325 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the bullock cart. Due to the impact, petitioner No.1, his wife and children sustained severe injuries and Sakribai, wife of petitioner No.1, died in the government Hospital, Kudligi. In the said accident, one bullock died and the bullock cart was also damaged. On these grounds the petitioner filed a claim petition in MVC No.270 of 2012 seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for himself, Rs.50,000/- due to death of one of the bullocks in the accident and Rs.50,000/- for the damage caused to his bullock cart. Due to the accident that occurred on 21.02.2009, as Sakribai, wife of Krishna Naik, died, the husband and children of the deceased-Sakri Bai, filed a claim petition in MVC No.398 of 2010 seeking compensation.

¶29

To establish his case, the claimant himself

¶30

examined as PW-1 and produced 8 documents which are marked as Exs.P-1 to P-8. On behalf of the respondents,

¶31

¶32

the respondents have neither examined any witness nor produced any documents.

¶33

On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.13,000/- with interest at 9% per annum.

¶34

Even though the claimant has claimed total compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-, he has not produced any documents to establish his claim. The injuries suffered by the claimant is minor in nature. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly considered the deposition of the parties and the documents produced by the claimant, has rightly awarded compensation of Rs.13,000/- with interest at 9% per annum. Therefore, the claimant has not made out any case for enhancement of compensation. Hence, MFA No.100505 of 2016 is dismissed.

¶35

¶36

Miscellaneous First Appeal No.101710 of 2015 is filed by the legal representatives of deceased Sakribai, wife of Krishna Naik, challenging the judgment and award dated 8^th November 2010 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hospet, in MVC No.398 of 2010 whereby the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.4,77,000/- with interest at 6% per annum.

¶37

To establish their claim, petitioner No.1-husband of the deceased, examined himself as PW-1 and produced seven documents marked as Exs.P1 to P-7. On behalf of the respondents, respondent No.1, driver of the bus, was examined as RW-1 and no documents were produced.

¶38

On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.4,77,000/- with interest at 6% per annum.

¶39

¶40

Being dissatisfied with the quantum of

¶41

compensation, the claimants have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶42

It is not in dispute that Sakri Bai died due to the accident that occurred on 21.02.2009 due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-28/F-1325.

¶43

Learned counsel appearing for the appellantsclaimants contended that at the time of the accident, the deceased was earning Rs.4,500/- per month. The Tribunal was not justified in taking Rs.3,000/- as monthly income. Secondly, he contended that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 SUPREME COURT 5157 has held that under conventional heads, a sum of Rs.40,000/- has to be awarded towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. But the Tribunal has granted compensation contrary to the law laid down by

¶44

¶45

the Hon’ble Apex Court. Hence, he sought for enhancement of compensation.

¶46

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶47

It is not in dispute that Sakribai died in the

¶48

road traffic accident that occurred on 21.02.2009 due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-28/F-1325. The claimants are the husband and children of deceased Sakribai. Even though the claimants have taken a specific contention that the deceased was earning Rs.4,500/- per month by doing coolie work, the Tribunal, while assessing the income of the deceased has taken monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- which is on the lower side. Taking into consideration the deposition of the parties and the documents produced by the claimants, this Court is of the opinion that the monthly income of the deceased could be taken at Rs.4,500/- per month. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Seti (supra) has held that in case the

¶49

¶50

deceased was below 40 years and is self employed or on fixed salary, addition of 40%, between 40 to 50 years, addition of 25% and between 50 to 60 years, addition of 10% of established income towards future prospects has to be made. The deceased was aged 35 years as on the date of the accident. Hence, 40% of the income has to be added towards future prospects. Accordingly, loss of dependency is re-calculated as under:

¶51

4,500+40%=6300x3/4=4725x12x16=9,07,200/-

¶52

Thus the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.9,07,200/- towards loss of dependency. In addition to that, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi’s case, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/towards transportation and funeral expenses.

¶53

Accordingly, MFA No.101710 of 2015 is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 8^th November 2010 passed by the learned Principal Senior

¶54

¶55

Civil Judge and JMFC, Hospet, in MVC No.398 of 2010 is modified as follows:

¶56

			Rs.
1	Loss of dependency		9,07,200/-
2	Loss ofconsortium		40,000/-
3	Loss ofestate		15,000/-
4	Transportation and expenses	funeral	15,000/-
5	Compensation awarded tribunal towards loss of affection isretained	by the love and	20,000/-
		Total	9,97,200/-

¶57

Thus the claimants are entitled to re-assessed compensation of Rs.9,97,200/- with interest at 6% interest. The insurance company is directed to deposit the reassessed compensation with interest at 6% p.a. within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶58

MFA No.100505 0f 2016 is dismissed.

¶59

Kmv

¶60

SD/JUDGE

Krishna Naik S/O Seena Naik v. Siddappa Adavi S/O Parasappa Adavi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Naik S/O Seena Naik v. Siddappa Adavi S/O Parasappa Adavi

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

Roopa W/O. Nagaraj Meharwade Vs Saiman W/O. Frances Bareto

The Divisional Manager Vs Manjula W/O Basappa Bangi

The Divisional Manager, Vs Anil Kumar

Bhautish S/O. Andru Lobo Vs the Divisional Manager

Smt.Lalitavva W/O Tirakappa Kabbur Vs Smt.Parvatevva W./O Shivarudrappa Doddamani

Geetanjali @ Geethamma W/O Sharanappa Vs C G Gurubasavaraj S/O C G Siddalingappa