Partly allowed

Lakshmi @ Gollara Lakshmi W/O. Gollara Thippaiah v. the Divisional Controller

Karnataka HC7 Nov 2019MFA/23920/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this motor accident appeal, the High Court enhanced the compensation awarded to the legal heirs of a deceased pillion rider. The Court reassessed the notional income and applied a multiplier of 18, allowing an additional sum over the Tribunal's award.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs.4,74,100/- awarded in addition to the Tribunal's award with interest.

Lakshmi @ Gollara Lakshmi W/O. Gollara Thippaiah Vs… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 7^th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.G.M. PATIL

¶7

M.F.A.NO.23920/2013 (MV)

¶8

BETWEEN

¶9

LAKSHMI @ GOLLARA LAKSHMI W/O. GOLLARA THIPPAIAH , AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. KUDUTHINI VILLAGE, BELLARY.

¶10

GOLLAR THIPAIAH S/O. LATE VADDATTI HANUMANTHAPPA, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KUDUTHINI VILLAGE, BELLARY.

¶11

KUM. SUVARNA D/O. GOLLARA THIPPAIAH AGE: 18 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. KUDUTHINI VILLAGE, BELLARY .

¶12

... APPELLANTS

¶13

(By SRI. MANJUNATHA G. PATIL, ADV.)

¶14

¶15

AND

¶16

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC, 1^ST DEPOT, BELLARY DIVISION, BELLARY.

¶17

... RESPONDENT

¶18

(By SMT.VAISHALI K.KALADAGI & SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S. BADAWADAGI, ADVS.)

¶19

MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.02.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.1059/2011 ON THE FILE OF MEMBER, MACT-IX, BELLARY, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶20

RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON : 25.10.2019. JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 07.11.2019.

¶21

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, P.G.M.PATIL, J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The claimants being dissatisfied with the

¶24

Judgment and award dated 28.02.2012 passed in M.V.C.No.1059/2011 on the file of the M.A.C.T.-IX, Bellary, have filed this appeal.

¶25

¶26

2. It is the case of the claimants before the

¶27

Tribunal that one G.Jadesh, as a pillion rider and G.Buganna, as a rider of the Hero Honda motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-35/U-4803 were proceeding on 10.09.2010 at about 9.00 p.m. on NH-63, while they were so proceeding near Kuduthini darga, on Bellary-Hospet road, the driver of the KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-34/F-714 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle from behind. Due to the impact, both the rider and pillion rider fell down. The pillion rider G.Jadesh succumbed to the injuries on the spot and the rider G.Buganna sustained injuries. He was hospitalized. The legal representatives of the deceased G.Jadesh filed M.V.C.No.1059/2011 claiming compensation against the driver and self insurer KSRTC, whereas the injured G.Buganna filed M.V.C.No.1058/2011 claiming compensation.

¶28

¶29

Both the claim petitions were heard

¶30

together and disposed of by a common judgment.

¶31

After service of notice, respondent Nos.1

¶32

and 2 appeared through their counsel before the Tribunal and respondent No.2 filed the written statement denying that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by respondent No.1, resulting in the death of G.Jadesh and also that G.Buganna sustained grievous injuries.

¶33

It is further contended that the rider of the Hero Honda motorcycle attempted to overtake the front going bus from its right side went further and dashed to a lorry coming from the opposite direction and therefore the rider of the motorcycle has contributed to the cause of the accident. Therefore the respondents are not liable to pay compensation.

¶34

¶35

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, Tribunal framed the issues.

¶36

In support of their claim petitions, the claimants got examined PWs.1 and 2 and got exhibited 9 documents at Exs.P1 to P9. Respondent No.1 was examined as RW1 and got exhibited 2 documents at Exs.R1 and R2.

¶37

The learned member of the Tribunal after hearing both parties passed the impugned judgment awarding compensation of Rs.3,87,500/to the claimant in MVC No.1059/2011 together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. The claimants being dissatisfied with the said award have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation.

¶38

We have heard the learned counsel for the

¶39

parties.

¶40

¶41

The learned counsel for the claimants

¶42

submitted that the claims Tribunal has considered the salary of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- p.m. though he was working as a probationary trainer, which is on a lower side. The deceased would have drawn salary of Rs.22,000/- p.m. in future. The Tribunal has also not awarded future prospects to the claimants. Learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal has considered the age of the mother while applying the multiplier 15, which is erroneous, multiplier 18 should have been applied.

¶43

Per Contra, the learned counsel for

¶44

the respondent KSRTC-Corporation supported the impugned Judgment and award.

¶45

The claimants contended before the claims Tribunal that the deceased was working as a technician in KPTCL as a probationary trainer and therefore at that time,

¶46

¶47

he was getting salary of Rs.4,000/- p.m. as per Ex.P-8. The submission made on behalf of claimants appears to be acceptable and therefore the notional income as per the chart provided by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authorities for settlement of cases before the Lok Adalat for the year 2010 has to be considered. Accordingly, the notional income of the deceased has to be taken at Rs.5,500/- p.m. Further the claimants are entitled for additional 40% towards future prospects, it is also necessary to apply the multiplier 18, considering the age of the deceased, thus, on reassessment the following just compensation is awarded:

¶48

The income of the deceased is taken at Rs.5,500/-p.m. and an addition of 40% towards future prospects would come to Rs.2,200/-p.m. Thus, the total income of the deceased comes to Rs.7,700/- p.m. Since the deceased was a

¶49

¶50

bachelor, 50% of the said income has to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses and accordingly the remaining income would be Rs.3,850/-, which has to be multiplied by 12 and 18. Thereby a sum of Rs.8,31,600/(Rs.3,850/-X12X18) is awarded towards loss of dependency. Rs.30,000/is awarded under conventional heads as the deceased was a bachelor. Thus the claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.8,61,600/- as against Rs.3,87,500/awarded by the claims Tribunal. Thereby the claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.4,74,100/-. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:

¶51

ORDER

¶52

Appeal is allowed in part. The

¶53

appellants/claimants are awarded enhanced compensation of Rs.4,74,100/- in addition to the

¶54

¶55

award made by the claims Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.

¶56

The apportionment, deposit and

¶57

disbursement of the compensation shall be in terms of the order of the Tribunal.

¶58

SD/JUDGE

¶59

SD/JUDGE

¶60

KGK

Lakshmi @ Gollara Lakshmi W/O. Gollara Thippaiah v. the Divisional Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakshmi @ Gollara Lakshmi W/O. Gollara Thippaiah v. the Divisional Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baburao Gangadhar Doddannawar, Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Mahaboobsab S/O Sannaharjarathsab Makandar, Vs State of Karnataka

The Assistant Commissioner Vs Shri.Basavanni Ramu Chogule

Smt.Talkal Savitramma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

A.S. Impex Vs M/S.Shree Durga Traders

Chanrappa S/O Ramanna Vadavani Vs A.R. Alagur