Partly allowed

The Manager v. Smt.Jyoti W/O Anand Katti

Karnataka HC23 Sept 2023MFA/102084/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Fatal motor accident claims concerned negligence, impleadment and compensation. The Court held the lorry driver solely negligent, rejected impleadment of the car's driver, owner and insurer, and dismissed the insurer's appeals. It partly allowed the claimants' appeals, enhancing compensation with 6% annual interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced in MVC.Nos.681/2015 and 682/2015, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition until realization.

The Manager Vs Smt.Jyoti W/O Anand Katti — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11534-DB MFA No. 102083 of 2020 C/W.MFA No.104279 of 2019, MFA Nos.100272, 101769, 102082 and 102084 of 2020.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶8

Digitally signed by SHIVAKUMAR HIREMATH Date: 2024.01.08 16:36:51 +0530

¶9

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102083 OF 2020 (MV-D) C/W

¶10

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.104279 OF 2019 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NOS.100272, 101769, 102082 AND 102084 OF 2020

¶11

IN MFA NO.102083/2020

¶12

BETWEEN:

¶13

THE GENERAL MANAGER, IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., STARATEGIC BUSINESS UNIT, SUDEV PLAZA, 3RD FLOOR, OPP. LAXMI TEMPLE, DAJIBANPETH HUBBALLI, 580029, 400071, POLICY NO 3.1A4YGWE400, 89151145 (LORRY) VALID FROM 24.09.2014 TO 23.09.2015 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY.

¶14

…APPELLANT

¶15

(BY SRI G. N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

SMT. VIJAYLAXMI W/O. RAJASHEKAR HANCHINAMANI, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK,

¶18

2 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11534-DB MFA No. 102083 of 2020 C/W.MFA No.104279 of 2019, MFA Nos.100272, 101769, 102082 and 102084 of 2020.

¶19

R/O HOUSE NO.31 SBI COLONY, NEAR PHQ, BELAGAVI ROAD, DHARWAD-580010.

¶20

SRI SANDEEP LALASO MANE AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: AT/POST KARI, TAL-SALARA, MANCHIWADI, MAHARASHTRA-415001.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI K. L. PATIL AND

¶23

SRI S.S. BETURMATH, ADVOCATES FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.2-SERVED)

¶24

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.08.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.681/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, DHARWAD BY EXONERATING THE APPELLANT INSURANCE COMPANY FROM THE LIABILITY AND REDUCING THE COMPENSATION BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COST.

¶25

IN MFA NO. 104279/2019

¶26

BETWEEN:

¶27

KUMAR GRAHISH S/O. RAHUL KARADAGI, AGE: 17 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER-NEXT FRIEND SMT. SONAL W/O. RAHUL KARADAGI, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: SANKESHWAR-591313, TALUK: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶28

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11534-DB MFA No. 102083 of 2020 C/W.MFA No.104279 of 2019, MFA Nos.100272, 101769, 102082 and 102084 of 2020.

¶29

SMT. SONAL W/O. RAHUL KARADAGI, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O SANKESHWAR-591313, TALUKA: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶30

…APPELLANTS

¶31

(BY SMT. SUNANDA P. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶32

AND:

¶33

SRI SANDEEP S/O. LALASO MANE, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: A/P : KARI, TALUKA SATARA, MANIACHIWADI, SATARA, DIST: SATARA, MAHARASTRA STATE.

¶34

THE GENERAL MANAGER, IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., STRATEGIC BUSINESS UNIT, SUDEV PLAZA, 3RD FLOOR, OPPOSITE LAXMI TEMPLE, DAJIBANPETH, HUBBALLI-580024.

¶35

SMT. KAVITA W/O. RAHUL KARADAGI, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, C/O: P.M. KULKARNI, KEMPAGIRI 3RD CROSS, NEAR VANITHA SEVA SAMAJ, DHARWAD-580001.

¶36

SHRI SHANKAR S/O. RAMAPPA KARADAGI, AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O H.NO.19 TRAINING COLLEGE ROAD, CHANABASAPPA NAGAR, DHARWAD-580008.

¶37

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11534-DB MFA No. 102083 of 2020 C/W.MFA No.104279 of 2019, MFA Nos.100272, 101769, 102082 and 102084 of 2020.

¶38

SMT. RATANPRABHA W/O. SHANKAR KARADAGI, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: H.NO. 19, TRAINING COLLEGE, ROAD, CHANABASAPPA NAGAR, DHARWAD 580008.

¶39

…RESPONDENTS

¶40

(BY SRI G. N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO. 2; SRI MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADV. FOR RESPONDENT NO. 3;

¶41

NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NOS.1, 4 AND 5-SERVED)

¶42

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19/08/2019 IN MVC.NO.682/2015 PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, DHARWAD AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION FROM RS.99,07,460/- TO RS.5,00,00,000/TO THE APPELLANTS AND RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶43

IN MFA NO. 100272/2020

¶44

BETWEEN:

¶45

SMT. VIJAYALAXMI W/O. RAJSHEKHAR HANCHINAMANI, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: HOUSE NO. 31, SBI COLONY, NEAR PHQ BELGAUM ROAD, DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶46

…APPELLANT

¶47

(BY SRI K. L. PATIL AND SRI S. S. BETURMATH, ADVOCATES)

¶48

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11534-DB MFA No. 102083 of 2020 C/W.MFA No.104279 of 2019, MFA Nos.100272, 101769, 102082 and 102084 of 2020.

¶49

AND:

¶50

SHRI. SANDEEP LALSO MANE, AGE: MAJOR, OWNER OF THE VEHICLE, R/O: A/P. KARI, TQ: SATAR, MANIACHI WADI, SATARA, STATE: MAHARASTRA 415001.

¶51

THE GENERAL MANAGER, IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., STRATEGIC BUSINESS, UNIT, SUDEV PLAZA, 3RD FLOOR, OPP: LAXMI TEMPLE, DAJIBANPET, HUBBALLI-580029, 400071.

¶52

(POLICY NO. 31A4YGWE400, POLICY NO.89151145-LORRY, VALID FROM 24/09/2014 TO 23/09/2015)

¶53

…RESPONDENTS

¶54

(BY SRI G.N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2; NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.1 DISPENSED WITH)

¶55

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.08.2019 PASSED IN MVC.NO.681/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, DHARWAD, ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION FROM RS.34,45,000/- TO Rs.5 CRORES, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND A DIRECTION MAY BE ISSUED TO RESPONDENT NO. 2 TO PAY THE COMPENSATION HOLDING THAT RESPONDENT NO. 1 TO 2 ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE TO PAY THE SAID COMPENSATION.

¶56

6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11534-DB MFA No. 102083 of 2020 C/W.MFA No.104279 of 2019, MFA Nos.100272, 101769, 102082 and 102084 of 2020.

¶57

IN MFA NO. 101769/2020

¶58

BETWEEN:

¶59

KAVITA W/O. RAHUL KARADAGI, AGED: ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: P.M. KULKARNI, KEMPAGIRI, 3RD CROSS, NEAR VANITHA SEVA SAMAJ, DHARWAD-580001.

¶60

…APPELLANT

¶61

(BY SRI MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶62

AND:

¶63

SRI SANDEEP S/O. LALASO MANE, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: AT/POST: KARI TALUKA SATARA MANIACHIWADI SATARA, DIST: SATARA, MAHARASTRA STATE.

¶64

THE GENERAL MANAGER, IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., STRATEGIC BUSINESS UNIT, SUDEV PLAZA, 3RD FLOOR, OPPOSITE LAXMI TEMPLE, DAJIBANPETH, HUBBALLI-580024, DHARWAD.

¶65

SHANKAR S/O. RAMAPPA KARADAGI, AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: TRAINING COLLEGE ROAD, CHANABASAPPA NAGAR, DHARWAD-580008.

¶66

RATNAPRABHA W/O. SHANKAR KARADAGI, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: NO.19, TRAINING COLLEGE ROAD, CHANNABASAPPA NAGAR, DHARWAD.

¶67

¶68

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11534-DB MFA No. 102083 of 2020 C/W.MFA No.104279 of 2019, MFA Nos.100272, 101769, 102082 and 102084 of 2020.

¶69

5. KUMAR GRAHISH

¶70

S/O. RAHUL KARADAGI, AGE: 17 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER SMT. SONAL W/O. RAHUL KARADAGI / SONAL D/O. SHAYAM GOURAV, AGED: ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: HOUSE NO.1, DREAMS HOMES APARTMENT, KARANDE MAL, TARABAI PARK, KOLHAPUR, STATE MAHARASHTRA.

¶71

SMT. SONAL W/O. RAHUL KARADAGI, AGE: ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: SANKESHWAR TALUK, HUKKERI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.

¶72

…RESPONDENTS

¶73

(BY SRI G. N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2; BY SRI IRANAGOUDA K. KABBUR, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4; BY SMT. SUNANDA PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R5 & 6)

¶74

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.08.2019 PASSED IN MVC.NO.682/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, DHARWAD WITH 12% INTEREST IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶75

IN MFA NO. 102082/2020

¶76

BETWEEN:

¶77

THE GENERAL MANAGER, IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., STARATEGIC BUSINESS UNIT, SUDEV PLAZA,

¶78

8 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11534-DB MFA No. 102083 of 2020 C/W.MFA No.104279 of 2019, MFA Nos.100272, 101769, 102082 and 102084 of 2020.

¶79

3RD FLOOR OPP. LAXMI TEMPLE, DAJIBANPETH, HUBBALLI, 580029, POLICY NO 3.1A4YGWE400, POLICY NO. 89151145 (LORRY), VALID FROM 24.09.2014 TO 23.09.2015, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY.

¶80

…APPELLANT

¶81

(BY SRI G. N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE)

¶82

AND:

¶83

SMT. KAVITA W/O. RAHUL KARADAGI,

¶84

AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK, C/O. P.M. KULKARNI KEMPAGIRI, 3RD CROSS

¶85

NEAR VANITHA SEVA SAMAJ, DHARWAD-580001.

¶86

SHRI SANDEEP LALASO MANE, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: AT/POST KARI, TAL-SATARA, MANCHIWADI, SATARA, STATE-MAHARASHTRA-415001, LORRY BEARING NO.MH 11/AL-1820.

¶87

SHANKAR

¶88

S/O. RAMAPPA KARADAGI,

¶89

AGE: 76 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED GOVERNMENT SERVANT, R/O NO.19 TRAINING COLLEGE ROAD, DY. CHANNABASAPPA NAGAR, DHARWAD-580008.

¶90

SMT. RATNAPRABHA W/O. SHANKAR KARADGI, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O NO.19 TRAINING, COLLEGE ROAD, DY.CHANNABASAPPA NAGAR, DHARWAD-580008.

¶91

9 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11534-DB MFA No. 102083 of 2020 C/W.MFA No.104279 of 2019, MFA Nos.100272, 101769, 102082 and 102084 of 2020.

¶92

KUMAR GRAHISH S/O. RAHUL KARADAGI, AGE: MINOR, OCC: STUDENT SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED MOTHER SMT. SONAL W/O. RAHUL KARADAGI / SONAL SHAYAM GOURAV, R/O H.NO 1 DREAMS, HOMES, APARTMENT KARANDE MAL, TARABAI PARK, KOLHAPUR, MAHARASTRA STATE-415004.

¶93

SMT. SONAL W/O. RAHUL KARADAGI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: SANKESHWAR, TQ : HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591313.

¶94

…RESPONDENTS

¶95

(BY SRI MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADV. FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SMT. SUNANDA PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.5 AND 6; NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NOS.2, 3 AND 4-SERVED)

¶96

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.08.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.682/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, DHARWAD, BY EXONERATING THE APPELLANT INSURANCE COMPANY FROM THE LIABILITY AND REDUCING THE COMPENSATION.

¶97

10 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11534-DB MFA No. 102083 of 2020 C/W.MFA No.104279 of 2019, MFA Nos.100272, 101769, 102082 and 102084 of 2020.

¶98

IN MFA NO. 102084/2020

¶99

BETWEEN:

¶100

THE MANAGER, IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BHAVANI ARCADE, 3RD FLOOR 306,307, 308 OLD BUS STAND STOP, BASAV VAN NEW COTTON MARKET, HUBBALLI-580020, INSURER OF TATA LPT BEARING NO. MH-11/AL-1820 VALID FROM 24.09.2014 TO 23.09.2015 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY.

¶101

…APPELLANT

¶102

(BY SRI G. N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE)

¶103

AND:

¶104

SMT. JYOTI W/O. ANAND KATTI, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O: CTS 9483/6, SECTOR NO.11, MAHANTESH NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590009.

¶105

KUMARI PRIYA D/O. ANAND KATTI, AGE: 09 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: CTS 9483/6, SECTOR NO.11 MAHANTESH NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590009.

¶106

KUMAR SHARAN S/O. ANAND KATTI, AGE: 09 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: CTS 9483/6, SECTOR NO.11, MAHANTESH NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590009.

¶107

11 -

¶108

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11534-DB MFA No. 102083 of 2020 C/W.MFA No.104279 of 2019, MFA Nos.100272, 101769, 102082 and 102084 of 2020.

¶109

SINCE THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3 BEING THE MINORS, REPRESENTED – BY THEIR NEXT FRIEND NATURAL MOTHER-RESPONDENT NO.1.

¶110

SMT. SUVARNA W/O. VIRUPAXI KATTI, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC : HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O: 5TH CROSS, M. B. NAGAR, KOPPAD KERE, DHARWAD-580015.

¶111

SHRI VIRUPAXI

¶112

S/O. VEERBHADRAPPA KATTI, AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC : PENTIONER, R/O: 5TH CROSS, M.B. NAGAR, KOPPAD KERE, DHARWAD-580015.

¶113

SHRI SANDEEP LALASOMANE MANE, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: AT/POST KARI, MANCHIWADI, MAHARASHTRA STATE.

¶114

…RESPONDENTS

¶115

(NOTICE SERVED TO RESPONDENT NOS. 1, 4 AND 5) (RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY RESPONDENT NO.1)

¶116

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.01.2017 PASSED IN MVC.NO.1235/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI, BY EXONERATING THE APPELLANT INSURANCE COMPANY FROM THE LIABILITY BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COST IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶117

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, BASAVARAJ J. , DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶118

12 -

¶119

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11534-DB MFA No. 102083 of 2020 C/W.MFA No.104279 of 2019, MFA Nos.100272, 101769, 102082 and 102084 of 2020.

¶120

JUDGMENT

¶121

The appellant-IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited has preferred appeal in MFA.No.102084/2020, which is arising out of MVC.No.1235/2015 dated 30.01.2017 on the file of VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi; Appellant-Insurance Company has preferred MFA.No.102083/2020 arising out of MVC.No.681/2015 on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge and Additional MACT, Dharwad. The claimant preferred appeal in MFA.No.100272/2020. Appellant-claimants have preferred appeal in MFA.No.101769/2020 against the Judgment and Award passed in MVC.No.682/2015 on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge and Additional MACT, Dharwad. Appellants in MFA.No.104279/2019 who are the son and divorced wife of deceased-Rahul, filed appeal against the Judgment and Award dated 19.08.2019 passed in MVC.No.682/2015 by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge and Additional MACT, Dharwad. All these cases clubbed together for the reason that the accident in both cases are one and the same and are disposed of by this common judgment.

¶122

13 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11534-DB MFA No. 102083 of 2020 C/W.MFA No.104279 of 2019, MFA Nos.100272, 101769, 102082 and 102084 of 2020.

¶123

Parties in these appeals are referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal.

¶124

Brief facts of claim petitions in MVC.No.681 and 682 of 2015 are as under :

¶125

On 20.03.2015, Rahul Karadagi and his friends Vishal and Anand Katti were proceeding from Bengaluru to Dharwad in a car bearing registration No.KA-03/MQ-7956 on N.H.-4 by following traffic rules and regulations. When they came near Laxmisagar village gate in Chitradurga District, one lorry bearing No.MH-11/AL-1820 came from Chitradurga towards Davanagere in a high speed, rash and negligent manner endangering to human life by overtaking the car on the left side and suddenly took right side ‘U’ turn at the spot of the accident without showing signs or giving signals or blowing horns and without following traffic rules and regulations and while so taking right side ‘U’ turn, dashed to the car. As a result of impact, all the inmates of the car have sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Car was also badly damaged. Immediately people gathered at the spot, took all the inmates of the car to Chitradurga government hospital,

¶126

14 -

¶127

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11534-DB MFA No. 102083 of 2020 C/W.MFA No.104279 of 2019, MFA Nos.100272, 101769, 102082 and 102084 of 2020.

¶128

Vishal and Rahul succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. Postmortem of both bodies have been conducted.

¶129

Claimant in M.V.C.No.681/2015 is the mother of

¶130

Vishal. She contended that the deceased-Vishal was only son to her. Her daughter has already married and she is residing in her husband's house. The husband of the petitioner expired during 2001. The deceased was looking after the petitioner. He had passed BBA course in the year 2008 and thereafter, he did MBA and employed in Voltas company at Hyderabad with salary package of Rs.3,99,606/- per year. The deceased in order to take further higher education had left the job. He was maintaining the petitioner. Due to untimely death of Vishal, the petitioner is suffering mentally as well as financially. She has spent huge amount for shifting the dead body and funeral expenses etc. Accordingly, she requested to award compensation of Rs.5 crore with future interest at 18% p.a. from the date of petition till complete realization. She further contended that the respondent No.1 is the owner of lorry and it is insured with respondent No.2. Hence, the respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

¶131

15 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11534-DB MFA No. 102083 of 2020 C/W.MFA No.104279 of 2019, MFA Nos.100272, 101769, 102082 and 102084 of 2020.

¶132

The claimant in M.V.C.No.682/2015 is the wife of Rahul Karadagi. The respondents 3 and 4 are the parents of Rahul and respondent No.5 is the son of Rahul born through first wife and respondent No.6 is the divorced wife of deceased-Rahul. The petitioner has spent Rs.50,000/- towards transportation of dead body and Rs.1,00,000/- towards funeral and other expenses. It is contended that deceased-Rahul was hale and healthy, he was General Manager working in a reputed company BOSCH and he was getting salary of Rs.1,50,000/per month. He was the only earning member in the family, he was contributing his entire earnings to the family. The family having irrigation agriculture lands and the deceased was growing commercial crops like sugarcane, cotton etc. He was also getting net income at Rs.40,000/- per year from agriculture. The petitioner has lost her husband in her young age and lost love and affection of her husband. A case has been registered against the driver of lorry and after investigation; charge sheet has been filed against him. The respondent No.1 is the owner of the lorry and said lorry has been insured with respondent No.2. Hence the respondents 1 and 2 are jointly

¶133

16 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11534-DB MFA No. 102083 of 2020 C/W.MFA No.104279 of 2019, MFA Nos.100272, 101769, 102082 and 102084 of 2020.

¶134

and severally liable to pay compensation. On these grounds, the petitioner has prayed to award compensation of Rs.5 crore with 18% interest p.a. from the date of petition till complete realisation.

¶135

The respondent No.2 in both cases filed objections, wherein it is contended that the petitions are false, frivolous, vexatious and they are not maintainable either in law or on facts. The petitions are bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The owner of the car and its insurer are necessary parties to these petitions. The accident has been caused due to rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver. There is no negligence on the part of the lorry driver. The lorry driver was not having valid driving licence at the time of accident, so Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. The compensation claimed by the petitioners is exorbitant. The liability of respondent No.2 is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. The owner of the lorry has violated the policy conditions. On that ground also insurance company is not liable to pay compensation, accordingly requested to reject the petitions.

¶136

17 -

¶137

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11534-DB MFA No. 102083 of 2020 C/W.MFA No.104279 of 2019, MFA Nos.100272, 101769, 102082 and 102084 of 2020.

¶138

In M.V.C.No.682/15, the respondents No.5 and 6 have filed objection contending that the respondent No.5 is the son of Rahul Karadagi and respondent No.6 is the wife. Rahul was working in Bosch company and drawing salary of Rs.3,00,000/per month. Rahul has given divorce to respondent No.6, since then he is residing separately. The deceased was taking care of the expenses of both respondents No.5 and 6. So they are also entitled for compensation. The respondent No.1 is the owner of the lorry and it was insured with respondent No.2. Hence they are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

¶139

Brief facts of the claim petition MVC.No.1235/2015 are as under :

¶140

On 20.03.2015, the Anand S/o. Virupaxi Katti was proceeding in car bearing No. KA-03/MQ-7956 (hereinafter called as Car) from Bengaluru to Belagavi along with his friends by name Rahul and Shankar Karadagi and Vishal Hanchinmani. Shankar Karadagi was driving the same in a moderate speed. When the car came near Laxmisagar Gate U-Turn within the limits of Laxmisagar village on NH-4 road, at that time driver of the truck bearing No.MH-11/AL-1820 who was proceeding

¶141

18 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11534-DB MFA No. 102083 of 2020 C/W.MFA No.104279 of 2019, MFA Nos.100272, 101769, 102082 and 102084 of 2020.

¶142

ahead of the car, all of a sudden took turn towards right side in a rash and negligent manner and without giving any kind of signal or blowing horn. As a result, the said car dashed to the middle portion of the offending vehicle and accident caused. Due to the impact, the deceased succumbed to the fatal injuries sustained by him in the accident. The petitioners have spent more than Rs.1,00,000/- towards funeral expenses and transportation of the dead body. Prior to the accident the deceased was young, hale and healthy and energetic and had completed B.E. in Electronics and Communications and he was serving as Software Engineer, Technical lead in renowned Multi National Company by name Schneider Electric in Bangalore and was getting salary of Rs.2,00,000/- per month in addition to other benefits and facilities. The deceased was utilizing his income for maintaining petitioners. Due to the sudden death of the deceased, the petitioners lives plunged into dark and miserable conditions. They lost their only bread earning member. The petitioners were completely depending upon the income of the deceased. The accident took place solely due to rash and negligence driving of offending vehicle by its driver.

¶143

19 -

¶144

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11534-DB MFA No. 102083 of 2020 C/W.MFA No.104279 of 2019, MFA Nos.100272, 101769, 102082 and 102084 of 2020.

¶145

The respondent No.1 being the owner and respondent No.2 being its insurer, are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. Hence, prays to allow the petition.

¶146

In pursuance of notice, respondents No.1 and 2 appeared through their respective counsels. Respondent No. 1 has not filed any objections.

¶147

The sum and substance of the statement of objections filed by the 2^nd respondent in all the petitions is that the accident occurred due rash and negligent driving of the car by the deceased himself. The accident is not caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. The driver of the offending vehicle had not possessed valid and effective driving license on the date of the accident. There is violation of the policy conditions. The petitions are bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The owner of the car and its insurer are necessary parties to these petitions. Further they have denied all the averments and sought for dismissal of claim petitions.

¶148

20 -

¶149

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11534-DB MFA No. 102083 of 2020 C/W.MFA No.104279 of 2019, MFA Nos.100272, 101769, 102082 and 102084 of 2020.

¶150

On the basis of rival pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the issues :

¶151

In M.V.C.No.681/2015,

¶152

Whether the petitioner proves that on 20/3/2015 at about 6.45 p.m. when the deceased Vishal proceeding from Bengaluru to Dharwad in Car No.KA-03/MQ-7956 near Laxminagar Village Gate of Chitradurga District on NH.4 the driver of lorry No.MH.11/AL-1820 came driving the said vehicle in high speed rash and negligent manner and dashed to the above said car and the said Vishal died in the accident?

¶153

Whether the respondent No.2 proves that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

¶154

Whether the respondent No.2 proves that the driver of lorry No.MH-11/AL-1820 was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident?

¶155

Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what is quantum of compensation and from whom?

¶156

What order or award?

¶157

In MVC No.682/2015,

¶158

21 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11534-DB MFA No. 102083 of 2020 C/W.MFA No.104279 of 2019, MFA Nos.100272, 101769, 102082 and 102084 of 2020.

¶159

Whether the petitioner proves that, she is the dependent and legal representative of deceased Sri Rahul s/o.Shankar Karadagi?

¶160

Whether the petitioner proves that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the lorry bearing Reg.No.MH-11/AL-1820 by its driver and Sri Rahul s/o. Shankar Karadagi died due to the injuries sustained in the accident?

¶161

Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?

¶162

What order?

¶163

In M.V.C.No.681/15, the petitioner examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked 16 documents at Ex.P.1 to P.16. The Insurance Company has examined two witnesses as R.W.1 and 2 and got marked 2 documents at Ex.R.1 and R.2 and closed the side. In M.V.C.No.682/15, the petitioner examined herself as P.W.1 and she also examined one witness as P.W.2 and got marked 19 documents at Ex.P.1 to P.19. The insurance company examined the Investigating Officer as R.W.1. The respondent No.4 examined as R.W.2. The respondent No.6 examined as R.W.3 and the officer of the Insurance Company examined as R.W.4. They have got marked 3 documents as Ex.R.1 to R.3.

¶164

22 -

¶165

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11534-DB MFA No. 102083 of 2020 C/W.MFA No.104279 of 2019, MFA Nos.100272, 101769, 102082 and 102084 of 2020.

¶166

Having heard the arguments on both sides, the Tribunal has given its findings to the issues as under :

¶167

In M.V.C.No.681/2015 :

¶168

Issue No.1 : Accident is caused due to contributory negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and driver of the car on 20/3/2015 at about 6.40 p.m. and Vishal has sustained injuries and died on the spot in the said accident.

¶169

Issue No.2 : In the negative. Issue No.3 : In the negative. Issue No.4 : The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.34,45,000/from respondents 1 and 2 and owner and insurer of the car.

¶170

Issue No.5 : As per final order.

¶171

In M.V.C.No.682/2015

¶172

Issue No.1 : In the affirmative.

¶173

Issue No.2 : Accident was caused due to equal contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and driver of the car and in the said accident, Rahul

¶174

23 -

¶175

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11534-DB MFA No. 102083 of 2020 C/W.MFA No.104279 of 2019, MFA Nos.100272, 101769, 102082 and 102084 of 2020.

¶176

succumbed to the accidental injuries.

¶177

Issue No.3 : The petitioner and respondents 3 to 5 are entitled for compensation of Rs.99,07,460/from respondents 1 and 2 and owner and insurer of the car.

¶178

Issue No.4 : As per final order.

¶179

In view of above findings, the Tribunal has partly allowed the petitions and awarded compensation to the claimants. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal in the above claim petitions, Insurance Company has preferred an appeal challenging the liability of the Insurance Company and also quantum of compensation. The appellant-claimants have also filed the appeal for enhancement of compensation.

¶180

Along with the appeal, Insurance Company has filed I.A.No.2/2021 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of CPC in MFA.No.102083/2020 to implead the driver, owner of Swift Car bearing No.KA-3/MQ-7956 as respondents.

¶181

24 -

¶182

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11534-DB MFA No. 102083 of 2020 C/W.MFA No.104279 of 2019, MFA Nos.100272, 101769, 102082 and 102084 of 2020.

¶183

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of Insurance Company vehemently submits that the appellants have filed appeal on the ground that the Tribunal has granted 50% of the recovery rights against the owner and the insurer of the car in question. Admittedly, the said owner and insurer of the car are not at all parties to the proceedings. I.A.No.12 was filed before the Tribunal in connected case i.e., MVC.No.682/2015 under Order I Rule 10 of CPC, but the Tribunal rejected the same vide order dated 15.09.2018. However, the Tribunal has given a right to recover 50% against the present proposed respondents. In all appeals filed, the Insurance Company has filed interlocutory applications under Order I Rule 10 subsection 2 read with Section 151 of CPC to implead the proposed respondents i.e., the driver, owner and insurer of the swift car as they are necessary parties to the proceedings to adjudicate the matter in dispute. The Tribunal has also committed error in awarding exorbitant compensation in all the cases. Hence, he sought to for allowing of these appeals.

¶184

As against this, learned counsel for the appellantclaimants submits that the Tribunal has committed an error in

¶185

25 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11534-DB MFA No. 102083 of 2020 C/W.MFA No.104279 of 2019, MFA Nos.100272, 101769, 102082 and 102084 of 2020.

¶186

fastening 50% of the liability on the owner/insurer, who are proposed respondents as shown in Interlocutory Application filed by the Insurance Company. The driver of the lorry bearing registration No.MH-11/AL-1820 was solely responsible for the accident. Same is proved by producing the documentary evidence before the Tribunal. Hence, the question of impleading the owner and insurer of the swift car does not arise. I.A. filed under Order I Rule 10 of sub section 2 of CPC are not acceptable and same have to be rejected. Further, he submits that the Tribunal has not considered the future prospects, loss of consortium as per the decisions in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. NANU RAM @ CHUHRU RAM AND OTHERS, reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 and in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS , reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, the Tribunal has not awarded just compensation in accordance with law and facts and on all these grounds sought for dismissal of the appeals filed by the Insurance Company and allowing of the appeals filed by the claimants.

¶187

26 -

¶188

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11534-DB MFA No. 102083 of 2020 C/W.MFA No.104279 of 2019, MFA Nos.100272, 101769, 102082 and 102084 of 2020.

¶189

Having heard the arguments on both sides, the

¶190

following points would arise for our consideration :

¶191

(1) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in giving finding to the effect that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act on the part of the offending vehicle i.e., lorry bearing No. MH-11/AL-1820 and driver of the swift car bearing No.KA-03/MQ-7956?

¶192

(2) Whether, I.A.No.2/2021 filed in MFA No. 102083/2020 by the Insurance Company under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC deserves to be allowed?

¶193

(3) Whether the claimants/appellants are entitled for enhancement of compensation as sought for in MFA.No.104279/2019 and MFA.Nos.100272, 101769 of 2020?

¶194

(4) What order or award?

¶195

Our findings to the above points are as under :

¶196

Point No.1 - in affirmative. Point No.2 - in negative. Point No.3 - Partly in affirmative. Point No.4 - as per the final order

¶197

Regarding Points 1 and 2:

¶198

27 -

¶199

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11534-DB MFA No. 102083 of 2020 C/W.MFA No.104279 of 2019, MFA Nos.100272, 101769, 102082 and 102084 of 2020.

¶200

The Tribunal, in MVC.No.1235/2015 on the file of VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi in its Judgment and Award passed on 30.01.2017, has held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of the offending lorry which is shown in the charge sheet as car No. KA-03/MQ7956. In MVC.Nos.682 and 681 of 2015 also, the Tribunal has referred the observations made in the MVC.No.1235/2015 which is marked as Ex.P19. In these cases, considering the other evidence, the Tribunal has held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of the offending lorry and also swift car bearing No. KA-03/MQ-7956.

¶201

We have carefully examined the materials placed before this Court including the findings given by the Tribunal. A perusal of these materials makes it clear that on the basis of the complaint filed by one Sri Parameswarappa S.P., Bharamasagar Police have registered the Crime No.101/2015 against the driver of lorry bearing No.MH-11/AL-1820 for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC and submitted FIR to the Court. Thereafter, Police have visited the spot, conducted the spot panchanama in the

¶202

28 -

¶203

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11534-DB MFA No. 102083 of 2020 C/W.MFA No.104279 of 2019, MFA Nos.100272, 101769, 102082 and 102084 of 2020.

¶204

presence of panchas, prepared rough sketch of spot and conducted inquest panchanama of the deceased, obtained MVI report and recorded the statements of the witnesses. On thorough investigation, Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet against the driver of lorry bearing No.MH-11/AL1820 for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC and Section 134(B) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

¶205

Apart from these documentary evidence, Smt. Kavita W/o. Rahul Karadagi examined as P.W.1 in MVC.Nos.682/2015 and Smt. Vijayalaxmi W/o. Rajashekhar Hanchinamani examined as P.W.1 in MVC.No.681/2015, have deposed as to the accident that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of lorry bearing No.MH11/AL-1820. During the course of cross-examination of these witnesses, respondents have not questioned as to the charge sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer against the driver of the offending vehicle shown in the charge sheet.

¶206

On the contrary, the Insurance Company examined the Investigating Officer, who has investigated the case as RW1

¶207

29 -

¶208

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11534-DB MFA No. 102083 of 2020 C/W.MFA No.104279 of 2019, MFA Nos.100272, 101769, 102082 and 102084 of 2020.

¶209

in MVC.No.681/2015. He has clearly deposed in his evidence that during the course of investigation, he found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of lorry, and accordingly submitted the charge sheet against him as per Ex.P5. This witness was treated as hostile witness and at the request of respondent’s counsel, crossexamined by the Insurance Company. During the course of examination, the respondents have not elucidated any favourable answer from this Investigating Officer to discard the evidence and charge sheet submitted by him. Apart from this, RW2-Chetankumar Wadawadagi, Legal Officer, IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company has not whispered anything about the charge sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer. He has clearly admitted that the Insurance Company has not questioned the charge sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer. Though, the Insurance Company has not placed any acceptable legal evidence before the Tribunal, both Tribunals have committed an error in come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of lorry and also the car. The Tribunals have ignored

¶210

30 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11534-DB MFA No. 102083 of 2020 C/W.MFA No.104279 of 2019, MFA Nos.100272, 101769, 102082 and 102084 of 2020.

¶211

statutory presumption as contemplated under Sections 114(e) and (g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

¶212

Keeping in the mind all above said provisions and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the claimants have proved by placing cogent, convincing, corroborative and trustworthy evidence before the Court to come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act on behalf of the driver of lorry bearing No.MH-11/AL-1820 as shown in the charge sheet. Since this Court has held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act on behalf of the driver of lorry bearing No.MH-11/AL-1820, the questioning of impleading the driver, owner and Insurance Company of the car bearing No. No.KA-03/MQ-7956 does not arise. They are not necessary parties to adjudicate the matter in dispute. Hence, the interlocutory application filed under Order-I Rule 10 sub-section 2 of CPC are liable to be dismissed, accordingly dismissed. Hence, we answer point No.1 in the affirmative and point No.2 in the negative.

¶213

Regarding point No.3:

¶214

31 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11534-DB MFA No. 102083 of 2020 C/W.MFA No.104279 of 2019, MFA Nos.100272, 101769, 102082 and 102084 of 2020.

¶215

MFA.No.104279/2019 and MFA No.101769/2020 are arising out of MVC.No.682/2015. The Tribunal has observed in paragraph Nos.21 to 23 of its Judgment that deceased-Rahul working in BOSCH company at the time of accident and was aged 40 years. His monthly salary was Rs.1,50,000/-. P.W.1 in her evidence also has deposed accordingly. P.W.2 the Area Manager of BOSCH company has deposed that deceased-Rahul was working as Deputy Manager in the BOSCH company. The Company has issued Salary Certificate as per Ex.P11 and also issued Ex.P9. Ex.P10 is the authorization document which clearly shows that the company has authorized the PW2 to lead evidence. Ex.P11 reveals that the deceased was working in then BOSCH company and his consolidated salary was Rs.73,510/- and cash perk basket was Rs.10,92,360/-per annum. Cash perk basket includes house rent allowance, supplementary allowance, conveyance allowance, telephone reimbursement and leave travel assistance and medical reimbursement. Considering the evidence of PW2 and contents of Ex.P11, the Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased-Rahul as Rs.1,64,540/-. The Tribunal has rightly

¶216

32 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11534-DB MFA No. 102083 of 2020 C/W.MFA No.104279 of 2019, MFA Nos.100272, 101769, 102082 and 102084 of 2020.

¶217

observed that “the petitioner is the wife of deceased Rahul. Admittedly respondents 3 and 4 are the parents of Rahul and respondent No.5 is the son of Rahul born through his first wiferespondent No.6. The respondent no.6 is divorced wife of Rahul. A perusal of the documents produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, particularly evidence given by respondent No.6 in a divorced case, makes it clear that she has relinquished her right of maintenance from the deceased Rahul i.e., her husband. So it is clear that respondent No.6 was not dependent on Rahul after divorce. The respondent No.3 is a retired government employee and he is getting pension. Taking into consideration all these aspects, it is just and necessary to deduct one-third income towards personal expenses of deceased Rahul, hence, monthly income contributed to the family is considered as Rs.1,09,694/-." But the Tribunal has not considered the future prospects of the deceased as per the decision in the case of PRANAY SETHI (supra) whereunder 50% has to be added to the salary. After deduction of one-third towards living and personal expenses of the deceased, then it comes to Rs.1,64,541/-. In view of decision of Hon'ble

¶218

33 -

¶219

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11534-DB MFA No. 102083 of 2020 C/W.MFA No.104279 of 2019, MFA Nos.100272, 101769, 102082 and 102084 of 2020.

¶220

Supreme Court in the case of SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS v.. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, 15 multiplier is applicable, then it comes to Rs.1,64,540/- X 12 X 15 = Rs.2,96,17,200/-. The same is awarded under the head loss of dependency. Keeping in mind the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SARLA VERMA and in the case of PRANAY SETHI (supra); so also, the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. NANU RAM ALIAS CHUHRU RAM AND OTHERS reported in (2018)18 SCC 130, the

¶221

claimants are entitled for following compensation:

¶222

Sl.No.	Head	Amount (Rs.)
1.	Towards loss of dependency	Rs.2,96,17,200/-
2.	Loss of consortium (04 dependants + 10%)	Rs.1,76,000/-
3.	For funeral expenses	Rs.16,500/-
4.	Loss of estate	Rs.16,500/-
	Total	Rs.2,98,26,200/-

¶223

As regards MFA.No.100272/2020 is arising out of MVC.No.681/2015 is concerned, the petitioner contended that she is the mother of deceased-Vishal and he is the only son for her. Her husband is no more. Her daughter has already married

¶224

34 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11534-DB MFA No. 102083 of 2020 C/W.MFA No.104279 of 2019, MFA Nos.100272, 101769, 102082 and 102084 of 2020.

¶225

and she is residing in her matrimonial house. She (petitioner) was exclusively depending upon her son. Her son was working in Voltas company at Hyderabad, having yearly salary package of Rs.3,99,606/-. Apart from this oral and documentary evidence, he has produced Exs.P9 and 10. The Insurance Company has produced the letter given by the Voltas Company Limited, which is marked at Ex.R2, wherein it is stated that the deceased was working from December-2014 till March-2015 and he was working in the said company and his annual income was Rs.3,90,606/-, approximately Rs.4,00,000/-. Ex.P8 is the Birth Certificate of deceased-Vishal, which reveals that the date of birth is 02.08.1986. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly considered the age of the deceased as 29 years as on the date of accident and applied the multiplier 17. In view of SARLA VERMA (supra), the Tribunal has deducted 50% of the income towards personal expenses of the deceased. The Tribunal has not added 40% of the income as future prospects. If same is added, it comes to Rs.5,60,000/- (Rs.4,00,000/- + 40% Rs.1,60,000/-). Out of this, 50% has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased as the deceased was a

¶226

35 -

¶227

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11534-DB MFA No. 102083 of 2020 C/W.MFA No.104279 of 2019, MFA Nos.100272, 101769, 102082 and 102084 of 2020.

¶228

bachelor at the time of death, then it comes to Rs.2,80,000/-. Accordingly, the loss of dependency would be Rs.47,60,000/(Rs.2,80,000/- X 17). Accordingly, petitioner is entitled for compensation as under:

¶229

Sl.No.	Head	Amount (Rs.)
1.	Towards loss of dependency	Rs.47,60,000/-
2.	Loss of consortium	Rs.44,000/-
3.	For transportation of dead body and funeral expenses.	Rs.16,500/-
4.	Loss of estate	Rs.16,500/-
	Total	Rs.48,37,000/-

¶230

Accordingly, petitioner is entitled for compensation of

¶231

Rs.48,37,000/-.

¶232

Petitioner-Smt. Kavita w/o Rahul Karadagi in MVC.No.682/2015 has filed appeal in MFA.No.101769/2020. In MVC.No.682/2015, Kavita was the petitioner. Kumar Grahish who is respondent No.5 and Smt. Sonal who is respondent No.6 in MVC.No.682/2015 have filed MFA.No.104279/2019. Accordingly, claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation. Hence, we answer point No.3 in partly affirmative.

¶233

36 -

¶234

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11534-DB MFA No. 102083 of 2020 C/W.MFA No.104279 of 2019, MFA Nos.100272, 101769, 102082 and 102084 of 2020.

¶235

For the aforesaid discussions, we proceed to pass the

¶236

following :

¶237

O R D E R

¶238

MFA.Nos.102083, 102082 and 102084 of 2020

¶239

filed by the Insurance Company are dismissed.

¶240

MFA.No.104279/2019 and MFA.Nos.100272 and 101769 of 2020 are partly allowed.

¶241

The petitioner and respondents No.3 to 5 in MVC.No.682/2015 are entitled for compensation of Rs.2,98,26,200/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.

¶242

The petitioner in MVC.No.681/2015 is entitled for compensation of Rs.48,37,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.

¶243