Partly allowed

Jadavat Nagamani and Anr. v. Sri. Anamalabasavayya and Anr.

Karnataka HC12 Oct 2022MFA/201689/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enhanced compensation from ₹7,97,000 to ₹12,30,000 in a motor vehicle accident case involving the death of the victim's father. Relying on Supreme Court precedents regarding future prospects and parental consortium, the Court awarded ₹11,20,000 for loss of dependency, ₹80,0 for parental consortium, and ₹30,000 for funeral expenses, directing the insurer to deposit the amount with in

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to ₹12,30,000 in lieu of ₹7,97,000; respondent directed to deposit the amount with interest at 6% p.a.

Jadavat Nagamani and Anr. Vs Sri. Anamalabasavayya… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. MUDAGAL

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL B. KATTI

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.201689/2018(MV)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

Jadavat Nagamani D/o. Jadavat Hankya Naik @ Gangaram, Age: 23 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Bhomreddy Gudam Mandal, Pulkai Dist, Medak (TS). Now residing at Siddapur Tanda, Chimmanchod, Tq. Chincholi Dist. Kalaburagi

¶10

Jadavat Vijaykumar, S/o. Jadavat Hankya Naik @ Gangaram, Age: 18 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Bhomreddy Gudam Mandal, Pulkai Dist, Medak (TS). Now residing at Siddapur Tanda, Chimmanchod,

¶11

MFA No.201689/2018

¶12

¶13

Tq. Chincholi Dist. Kalaburagi

¶14

... Appellants

¶15

(By Sri Harshvardhan R. Malipatil Advocate)

¶16

AND:

¶17

Sri Anamalabasavayya S/o. Anamala Simparaiah, Age: Major, Occ: Owner of Duster Car bearing No.AP-28/DU-4545, R/o. Plot No.18, Khanamet weakers Section Colony, Sherilingampalli, Hyderabad-500 003

¶18

HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd., Ist Floor, Virupaaksha Krupa, Opposite: KIMS Main Gate, P.B. Road, Vidyanagar, Hubli-580 021 … Respondents

¶19

(By Smt. Preeti Patil, Melkundi, Advocate for R2; R1-Notice dispensed with V/O. Dtd.09.07.2019.)

¶20

This Miscellaneous Fist Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act, praying to allow this appeal and enhance the compensation to Rs.36,18,000/-(excluding the amount awarded by the Tribunal) along with interest by modifying the judgment and award of the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Chincholi, dated 05.08.2017 in MVC No.755/2015, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶21

This appeal coming on for Admission, through physical hearing/video conference, this day K.S. Mudagal, J., delivered the following:

MFA No.201689/2018

JUDGMENT

Though the matter is coming up for admission, with consent of both the counsel it is taken up for final disposal.

¶26

Heard both sides.

¶27

Challenging the adequacy of the compensation awarded to them due to the death of their father, the claimants in MVC No.755/2015 on the file of the Senor Civil Judge and MACT, Chincholi, have preferred the above appeal.

¶28

When Jadavat Hankya Naik @ Gangaram, the father of the claimants was traveling in auto rickshaw bearing No.TS-15/AU-2400 on 10.06.2015 at about 5.45 p.m., near Chowtkoor limits on Sangareddy-Jogi Road, one Duster car bearing No.AP-28/DU-4545 hit the said auto and caused the accident. The father of the claimants died in accident on the spot. Regarding the accident, a criminal case was registered against the driver of the Car bearing No.AP-28/DU-4545. Respondent NoS.1 and 2 were the registered owner and the insurer of the said car.

¶29

MFA No.201689/2018

¶30

¶31

The appellants filed MVC No.755/2015 claiming compensation of Rs.44,15,000/- against the respondents. The respondents did not appear before the Tribunal and contest the matter. In support of their claim, appellant No.1 was examined as PW1 and Exs.P1 to P6 were marked on their behalf.

¶32

The Tribunal on hearing the parties, by impugned award granted compensation of Rs.7,97,000/on different heads as per the chart below:

¶33

1	Funeral and transportation expenses	Rs.25,000/-
2	Loss of dependency and loss of estate	Rs.6,72,000/-
3	Love and Affection	Rs.1,00,000/-
	Total	Rs.7,97,000/-

¶34

The appellants challenge the award on the

¶35

ground that the income of the deceased taken by the Tribunal is on the lower side and the Tribunal has not added the future prospects to the income of the deceased.

¶36

MFA No.201689/2018

¶37

¶38

Reiterating the grounds of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the compensation awarded on the loss of dependency and conventional heads is on the lower side. In support of his submission he relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680.

¶39

Smt. Preeti Patil Melkundi learned counsel for respondent No.2 justifies the impugned award and submits that there was no tangible evidence regarding the income of the deceased and the compensation awarded under the conventional head is just and proper.

¶40

Respondent No.2 did not dispute the age of the deceased and the evidence of PW1 with regard to the income of the deceased. As per the appellants/claimants the deceased was an agriculturist and also working as a Labour in EMPEE Distillery Company and earning `15,000/per month. But there was no objective evidence in proof of the said employment or his monthly income. The accident

¶41

MFA No.201689/2018

¶42

¶43

occurred in the year 2015. The Tribunal took the income notionally at Rs.6,000/- per month. The same is on the lower side. The income of the deceased during the year 2015 has to be notionally taken at Rs.8,000/- per month. As per the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pranaty Sethi's case referred to supra an amount at the rate of 25% has to be added to the said income as future prospects. Therefore, his monthly income comes to Rs.10,000/-.

¶44

Since the deceased has two dependents, 1/3 has to be deducted for his personal expenses. The

¶45

Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 14 relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarala Verma. Therefore, the compensation payable on the head loss of dependency comes to (Rs.10,000/- x 12 x 14 x 2/3) = Rs.11,20,000/-.

¶46

As per the judgment of the Supreme Court in the cases of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram and

¶47

MFA No.201689/2018

¶48

¶49

Others reported in 2018 ACJ Page 2782 each of the appellants are entitled to parental consortium of Rs.40,000/-.

¶50

As per the judgment in Pranay Sethi's case, on conventional heads, transportation of dead body and funeral expenses, a sum of Rs.30,000/- to be paid to the appellants.

¶51

Therefore, the just compensation payable is as

¶52

follows:

¶53

1	Loss of dependency	Rs.11,20,000/-
2	Loss of parental consortium	Rs.80,000/-
3	Transportation of dead body and funeral expenses	Rs.30,000/-
	Total	Rs.12,30,000/-

¶54

The award of the Tribunal to be modified

¶55

accordingly. Hence, the following:

¶56

ORDER

¶57

i) The appeal is partly allowed.

¶58

MFA No.201689/2018

¶59

¶60

ii) The appellants are awarded compensation of Rs.12,30,000/- in substitute of the impugned award. The respondent No.2 shall deposit the said amount before the Tribunal with interest thereon at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶61

iii) The 2nd respondent is entitled for adjustment of the amount deposited, if any, by this time.

¶62

iv) The award with regard to apportionment and investment in fixed deposit is maintained.

¶63

Sd/JUDGE

¶64

Sd/JUDGE

¶65

SBS*

Jadavat Nagamani and Anr. v. Sri. Anamalabasavayya and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jadavat Nagamani and Anr. v. Sri. Anamalabasavayya and Anr.

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

The State of Karnataka Vs Sunamalya Anjineya S/O Sunamalya Jangleppa

Madhukar S/O Vs Sanju and Ors.

Swati W/O Santosh Vs Govind Reddy

The Chairman and Ors. Vs Khutubuddin S/O Badasha Saheb and Anr.

Sharanagouda @ Shivasharanappa S/O Shivarao Police Patil Vs Kalavati D/O Sharanagouda Police Patil

The State of Karnataka Vs Santosh S/O Saharnappa Biradar and Ors.