Partly allowed

Smt. Bangarevva W/O Hanamanth Sausuddi, v. Mr. Virupakshi S/O. Sattyappa Siddapur

Karnataka HC25 Sept 2024MFA/101687/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court enhanced compensation from Rs. 3,35,000 to Rs. 13,10,748 by applying notional income, future prospects, and correct dependency deductions. The Court held the insurance company liable for payment, referencing a prior final judgment in a related matter.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 13,10,748 with 6% interest. Insurance company directed to pay.

Smt. Bangarevva W/O Hanamanth Sausuddi, Vs Mr… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14340 MFA No. 101687 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101687 OF 2022

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

SMT. BANGAREVVA W/O. HANAMANTH SAUSUDDI, AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. KALATIPPI, TALUK: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT - 587315.

¶6

SHRI. MALLAPPA S/O. PARAPPA MALLAPUR, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KALATIPPI, TAL: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT - 587315.

¶7

SHRI. HANAMANTH S/O. PARAPPA MALLAPUR, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KALATIPPI, TAL: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT - 587315.

¶8

SMT. SHANTAVVA W/O. PARAPPA SORGAVI, AGE 39 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: HULYAL, TAL: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT - 587301.

¶9

BHARATHI H M

¶10

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SHRI. BASAPPA S/O. PARAPPA MALLAPUR, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KALATIPPI, TAL: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT - 587315.

¶12

SHRI. RAMAPPA S/O. PARAPPA MALLAPUR, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KALATIPPI, TAL: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT - 587315.

¶13

SMT. MAHADEVI W/O. PARAPPA PATIL, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: KALATIPPI, TAL: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT - 587315.

¶14

SMT. LASAMAVVA W/O. NINGAPPA BAGEWADI,

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14340 MFA No. 101687 of 2022

¶16

AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: HANDIGUND, TAL: RAYABAG, DIST: BELAGAVI - 591235.

¶17

SMT. AKKAVVA W/O. HANAMANTH SAUSUDDI, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: KALATIPPI, TAL: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT - 587315.

¶18

SMT. KASHAVVA W/O. HANAMANTH JULPI, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: YARAGATTI, TAL: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI - 591 129.

¶19

…APPELLANTS

¶20

(BY SRI. HARISH S. MAIGUR, ADVOCATE)

¶21

AND:

¶22

MR. VIRUPAKSHI S/O. SATTYAPPA SIDDAPUR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GOLABAVI, TQ: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT - 587 315.

¶23

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., MARUTI GALLI, BELAGAVI - 590 001.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. RAVINDRA R. MANE, ADVOCATE R1; SRI. SANTOSH S. HATTIKATAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶26

THIS MFA FILED U/S.173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYS TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED IN MVC NO.2453/2013, ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT, BELAGAVI, AT: BELAGAVI, DATED 31.12.2015 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶27

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14340 MFA No. 101687 of 2022

¶30

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶31

This appeal is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded in the judgment dated 31.12.2015 passed in MVC No.2453/2013 by VI Additional District and Sessions Judge and Additional MACT, Belagavi.

¶32

The brief facts of claimants case are that, on 15.06.2013 at 2:00 pm on Sultanpur-Kalathippi road, the driver of Tractor bearing No.KA-48/T-9905 attached with two trailers bearing No.KA-29/2705 and KA-23/894 drove the same in a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle bearing No.KA-22-EB-80 driven by husband of deceased - Sadashiv Patil, wherein this deceased - Smt.Bhagavva Mallapur was a pillion rider, causing them grievous injuries and said two persons died due to the said injuries. The legal representatives of the said Bhagavva made a claim petition claiming compensation.

¶33

Tribunal after recording evidence, appreciating evidence, has awarded compensation as under:

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC-D:14340 MFA No. 101687 of 2022

¶36

Loss of dependency	:	Rs. 1,17,000-00
Loss of love and affection	:	Rs.50,000-00
Loss of estate	:	Rs. 1,00,000-00
Loss of consortium	:	Rs. 43,000-00
Towards transportation of dead body and funeral	:	Rs. 25,000-00
expenses
Total	:	Rs. 3,35,000-00

¶37

Heard the learned counsel for appellants-

¶38

claimants and learned counsel for respondent No.2-insurance

¶39

company.

¶40

Learned counsel for appellants would contend that the liability has been saddled on insurance company in MFA No.101960/2016 which also arises out of the same accident out of a common judgment passed in MVC Nos.2453/2013 and 86/2013. The said judgment has become final and the insurance company has not challenged the said judgment. Therefore, the liability to pay the compensation has to be saddled on the insurance company. He further contends that the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at ₹18,000/- per annum, but as per the chart prepared for settlement of disputes for Lok-Adalat by

¶41

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14340 MFA No. 101687 of 2022

¶42

the Legal Services Authority, the notional income fixed for the year 2013 is ₹7,000/- per month. The Tribunal ought to have taken the said income.

¶43

The Tribunal has not added the future prospects. He further submits that out of the claimants, four are the sons and seven are the daughters and therefore, the deduction towards personal expenses is to be taken at 1/4^th . He further submits that all the claimants being the husband and children of the deceased are entitled to consortium in a sum of (40,000 x 12) ₹4,80,000/-, with this he prayed to allow the appeal.

¶44

Learned counsel for respondent No.2-insurance company would contend that the deceased was a BPL Card holder and claimants being the husband and children are not dependent on her and therefore rightly taken the income and rightly deducted 50% towards her personal expenses. He admits that the judgment passed in MFA No.101960/2016 wherein the liability saddled on the insurance company has not been challenged by the insurance company and it has

¶45

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14340 MFA No. 101687 of 2022

¶46

become final. He submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper, with this he prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶47

Having heard the learned counsels, the Court has perused the impugned judgment and other materials placed on record.

¶48

It is not in dispute that the accident has taken place in the year 2013 and the deceased was aged 50 years. The notional income fixed by the Legal Services Authority for the year 2013 is ₹7,000/- per month. The Tribunal considering the fact that the deceased was holding BPL Card, has taken the yearly income of the deceased at ₹18,000/per annum. The Tribunal ought to have taken the notional income of the deceased at ₹7,000/- per month based on the chart prepared by the Legal Services Authority.

¶49

The Tribunal has not taken the future prospectus. Considering the age of the deceased as 50 years, she is entitled to future prospectus at 10% of her income. The claimants being the husband and children of the deceased,

¶50

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14340 MFA No. 101687 of 2022

¶51

the deduction towards personal expenses is required to be taken at 1/3^rd as against 50% as taken by the Tribunal. In view of the above, the loss of dependency is (7,000 + 700 =7,700 x 12 x 13 x 2/3) ₹8,00,748/-.

¶52

The claimant No.1 is the husband and other claimants are 11 children of the deceased. Therefore they are all entitled to consortium in a sum of ₹40,000/- each (40,000 x 12) ₹4,80,000/-. The claimants are also entitled to loss of estate of ₹15,000/- and funeral expenses at ₹15,000/-. In view of the above, the claimants are entitled

¶53

to total compensation as under:

¶54

Loss of dependency	: Rs.	8,00,748-00
Loss of estate	: Rs.	15,000-00
Loss of consortium	: Rs.	4,80,000-00
Towards funeral expenses	: Rs.	15,000-00
Total	: Rs.	13,10,748-00

¶55

The appellants are entitled to total compensation

¶56

of ₹13,10,748/- as against ₹3,35,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. As there is a delay of 1,482 days in filing the appeal, the appellants are not entitled to compensation for

¶57

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14340 MFA No. 101687 of 2022

¶58

the said period of delay. The rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9% per annum is on the higher side and considering the decisions of this Court and Hon’ble Apex Court, interest at 6% per annum is required to be awarded.

¶59

The Tribunal has saddled the liability on the owner of the vehicle i.e., respondent No.1. The appeal filed by the claimants in MFA No.101960/2016 which arises out of MVC No.86/2014, this Court by Judgment dated 02.01.2019 has fastened the liability on the insurance company. The said Judgment has not been challenged by the insurance company. Therefore, the liability to pay compensation is fastened on the insurance company.

¶60

In the result, the following:

¶61

ORDER

¶62

i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶63

ii) The Judgment passed in MVC No.2453/2013 is modified as under:

¶64

iii) The appellants-claimants are entitled to total compensation of ₹13,10,748/- with

¶65

9 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14340 MFA No. 101687 of 2022

¶66

interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.

¶67

iv) The respondent No.2-insurance company shall deposit the compensation amount within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.

¶68

v) The appellants are not entitled to interest for the delayed period of 1,482 days in filing the appeal.

¶69

vi) In view of the death of claimant No.1-the husband of the deceased, the appellants who are claimant Nos.2 to 12 are entitled to equal share in the amount of compensation.

¶70

vii) The entire amount is ordered to be released

¶71

to the claimants.

¶72

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶73

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 66

¶74

PJ CT:ANB

Smt. Bangarevva W/O Hanamanth Sausuddi, v. Mr. Virupakshi S/O. Sattyappa Siddapur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Bangarevva W/O Hanamanth Sausuddi, v. Mr. Virupakshi S/O. Sattyappa Siddapur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Ganesh S/O. Manigerappa Annigeri Vs the Central Bureau of Investigation

Shri Ganesh S/O. Manigerappa Annigeri Vs the Central Bureau of Investigation

Shri Adarsh S/O. Krishna Pavar, Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Zulekhabi W/O Diwansab Alur Vs Smt.Bibijan W/O Chamansab Sidenur

Shri. Laxman S/O Yallappa Bangennavar Vs the Special Land Acquistioni Officer

Irappa S/O. Balappa Kaleri Vs Surjeet Singh S/O. Pakhar Singh Dhoot