Partly allowed

Smt Sharadhamma v. Halappa H @ Haleshappa

Karnataka HC16 Jan 2021MFA/752/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court considered an appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award regarding compensation for the death of Hanumanthappa. The Court revised the Tribunal's assessment of the deceased's income and re-calculated the dependency loss, enhancing the total compensation award to Rs. 15,38,000/-.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed in part; the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 15,38,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition.

Smt Sharadhamma Vs Halappa H @ Haleshappa — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶7

M.F.A.No.752/2019 (MV)

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

1 . SMT.SHARADHAMMA W/O LATE ESHWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, PRESENT : NO OCCUPATION R/AT HOLE SIRIGERE VILLAGE, HARIHARA TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577530

¶10

2 . SRI YERRISWAMY M.H., S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS OCCUPATION : NIL R/AT HOLE SIRIGERE VILLAGE, HARIHARA TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577530 ...APPELLANTS

¶11

(BY SRI R.SATISH CHANDRA, ADV.)

¶12

AND :

¶13

1 . HALAPPA H. @ HALESHAPPA S/O VEERAPPA, AGE NOT KNOWN DRIVER OF MARUTHI OMNI KA-17-P-0944 R/AT HOLE SIRIGERE VILLAGE, HARIHARA TALUK-577516

¶14

HANUMANTHAPPA G.H., S/O LATE HALAPPA G., SINCE DEAD BY LR’s

¶15

¶16

2(a) SMT.SAVITHA W/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA G.H., AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS AGRICULTURIST, BEVINAHALLI VILLAGE, HARIHARA TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577530

¶17

2(b) . CHI. BHARATH G.H., S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA G.H., AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS, MINOR REP BY HIS MOTHER & NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT.SAVITHA W/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA G.H., AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS AGRICULTURIST BEVINAHALLI VILLAGE, HARIHARA TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577530

¶18

3 . THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, THE MANAGER PRAVASI MANDIRA ROAD, DAVANAGERE - 577001

¶19

4 . SHIVARAJ S/O BASAPPA, BUS DRIVER BADGE No.1517, KSRTC BUS NUMBER KA-18-F-0673 ADARSHA NAGAR, BEHIND KSRTC DEPOT, 1^ST CROSS, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577101

¶20

5 . THE DIVISION CONTROLLER KSRTC CHIKKAMAGALURU DEPOT (OWNER OF BUS KA-17-F-1163) CHIKKAMAGALURU-577101 …RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI C.SHANKAR REDDY, ADV. FOR R-3; SRI N.KUMAR, ADV. FOR R-5;

¶22

R-2(a) & R-4 ARE SERVED; R-2(b) IS MINOR REP. BY R-2(a).)

¶23

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.11.2018 PASSED IN MVC No.413/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT, HARIHARA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶24

¶25

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, S. SUJATHA, J ., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 22.11.2018 passed in MVC No.413/2015 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Harihara [Tribunal for short].

¶28

The claimants instituted the petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation for the death of Hanumanthappa in the road traffic accident.

¶29

It was contended that on 10.05.2014 at about 04.00 a.m., while the deceased Hanumanthappa was traveling in Maruti Omni bearing registration No.KA12-P944 near Cheeluru village, Honnali Taluk, a KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-18-F-673 coming from the opposite direction, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed to the Maruti Omni. Due to which, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died at the spot.

¶30

¶31

It was contended that the deceased was aged

¶32

about 40 years at the time of the accident and was earning Rs.15,000/- as a driver besides doing business in paddy. Due to the untimely death of the deceased, the claimants have lost the sole bread earner of the family and are suffering from untold mental agony, loss of dependency etc. On these set of facts and grounds, the claimants sought for compensation.

¶33

In response to service of notice, the respondents appeared through their respective counsel and contested the claim. The primary defence of the respondent – Corporation [Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation] was that the accident in question occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the Maruti Omni and not due to the negligence of the KSRTC bus. However, an interim compensation of Rs.50,000/- was awarded to the legal representatives of the deceased on sympathetical grounds. Accordingly, sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶34

¶35

On the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal

¶36

framed the issues and allowed the petition in part awarding total compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of the petition till its realization.

¶37

Being aggrieved, the claimants have

¶38

preferred the present appeal.

¶39

Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the material evidence on record in determining the income of the deceased, denying the future prospects. It was argued that the income determined by the Tribunal is meager and the same requires to be enhanced substantially having regard to the date of the accident and the age of the deceased. The compensation awarded under the different heads is on lower side.

¶40

Learned counsel for the Corporation justifying

¶41

the impugned judgment and award submitted that the

¶42

¶43

Tribunal after extensively analyzing the material evidence on record, has awarded just and proper compensation which does not call for any interference by this Court and the same requires to be confirmed. Accordingly, sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶44

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, the point that arises for our consideration is:

¶45

Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case?

¶46

The factum of accident and the death of the

¶47

Hanumanthappa are not in dispute. The Tribunal determined the monthly income of the deceased notionally at Rs.6,000/- and deducted 1/3^rd towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased. Referring to the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, the monthly income of the deceased is re-determined at Rs.8,500/-. Since the

¶48

¶49

deceased was aged about 40 years, adding 40% towards the future prospects, the monthly income of the deceased would be Rs.11,900/-. Applying the multiplier of 15, deducting 1/3^rd towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased, the loss of dependency would work out to Rs.14,28,000/- [11,900 x 12 x 15 x 2/3].

¶50

In terms of the ruling of the Hon'ble Apex

¶51

Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others ((2017)16 SCC 680) and New India Assurance Company Limited V/s. Somwati and Others 2020 [SCC ONLINE SC 720] , the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.1,10,000/- under the conventional heads viz., Rs.40,000/- towards filial consortium; Rs.40,000/towards the parental consortium; Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate.

¶52

For the reasons aforesaid, the total

¶53

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is re-assessed as under:

¶54

¶55

Sl.No.	Particulars	Amount[in Rs.]
1.	Loss ofdependency	14,28,000/-
2.	Loss of FilialConsortium	40,000/-
3.	Loss of ParentalConsortium	40,000/-
4.	Loss of Estate	15,000/-
5.	Funeralexpenses	15,000/-
	Total	15,38,000/-

¶56

Thus, the claimants shall be entitled to total compensation of Rs.15,38,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization.

¶57

Hence, the following:

¶58

ORDER

¶59

i] Appeal is allowed in part.

¶60

ii] The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified and enhanced to Rs.15,38,000/- as against Rs.7,50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal which shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization.

¶61

¶62

iii] The portion of the order of the Tribunal inasmuch as liability, apportionment and disbursement remains intact.

¶63

iv] The Corporation shall deposit the re-assessed total compensation determined as aforesaid before the Tribunal within 90 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment and order.

¶64

v] The modified compensation shall be disbursed in terms of the order of the Tribunal.

¶65

vi] Draw modified award accordingly.

¶66

vii] All the pending I.As stand disposed of accordingly.

¶67

SD/JUDGE

¶68

SD/JUDGE

¶69

NC.

Smt Sharadhamma v. Halappa H @ Haleshappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Sharadhamma v. Halappa H @ Haleshappa

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

Smt Chandramma Vs Mr Kumara

Smt. K. R. Poornima Vs the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Sri H K Lakshmana Vs Sri Krishnamurthy a N

Kumari. Shreya @ Rakshitha Vs Halappa. H @ Haleshappa

The Divisional Manager/Branch Manager Vs Sri Channalakkaiah

Smt Thippamma Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.