Partly allowed

Smt Chennavva W/O.Somappa Kadlennavar v. Shri Ningappa S/O. Ramu Kumbar

Karnataka HC4 Sept 2024MFA/102554/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Miscellaneous First Appeal, the High Court of Karnataka enhanced the compensation awarded to the appellants in a motor vehicle accident case where the deceased was killed by a truck. The court recalculated loss of dependency based on the deceased's income as a labourer and awarded additional compensation for loss of consortium.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed in part; the compensation was enhanced to Rs.16,02,000/- with interest at 6% per annum.

Smt Chennavva W/O.Somappa Kadlennavar Vs Shri… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12775 MFA No. 102554 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶4

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102554 OF 2020

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SMT. CHENNAVVA W/O.SOMAPPA KADLENNAVAR, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: CHACHADI, TQ : SAUNDATTI, DIST : BELAGAVI NOW AT KAMADHENU APARTMENT, BHAGYA NAGAR, 7^TH CROSS, BELAGAVI, TQ & DIST : BELAGAVI PIN : 590001.

¶7

KUMAR ADIVEPPA S/O. SOMAPPA KADLENNAVAR, AGE: 18 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: CHACHADI, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI NOW AT KAMADHENU APARTMENT, BHAGYA NAGAR, 7^TH CROSS, BELAGAVI, TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI PIN : 590001.

¶8

YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR

¶9

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

PARAVVA W/O. DUNDAPPA KADLENNAVAR, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: CHACHADI, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI NOW AT KAMADHENU APARTMENT, BHAGYA NAGAR, 7^TH CROSS, BELAGAVI, TQ & DIST : BELAGAVI PIN : 590001.

¶11

(BY SRI. HANAMANT R. LATUR, ADVOCATE)

¶12

…APPELLANTS

¶13

AND:

¶14

SHRI. NINGAPPA S/O. RAMU KUMBAR, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: UGAR BUDRAK, PIN : 591104 TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶15

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.,

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12775 MFA No. 102554 of 2020

¶17

ISSUING OFFICE, BRANCH MANAGER, 4576, PHARALE BUILDING, K.C.ROAD, NEAR PRABHAKAR TALKIES, CHIKKODI, THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., MARUTI GALLI, BELAGAVI, PIN : 590001. TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 8.12.2021. SRI. M.K. SOUDAGAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶20

THIS MFA FILED U/S.173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYS TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY X ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE & MEMBER OF ADDL. MACT, BELAGAVI, IN MVC NO.2412/2017 DATED 06.07.2019, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

This petition is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded in judgment dated 06.07.2019 in MVC No.2412/2017 by the learned X Additional District Judge and Additional MACT, Belagavi.

¶25

Facts in brief of the appellants/claimants'

¶26

case are that, on 27.04.2017 at about 05.30 p.m., one Mr. Raju Baburao Shirashet being the driver of a

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12775 MFA No. 102554 of 2020

¶28

Truck bearing Reg. No.KA-28/A-3840 drove it on Khanapur-Belagavi road in a direction from BelagaviGoaves to RPD cross in a high speed, rash and negligent manner and near Mahaveer Bhavan cross, he dashed the Truck from behind against deceased Somappa Dundappa Kadlennavar who was proceeding on a bicycle along left side of the said road at that time. As a result of the impact, the said bicycle rider suffered severe head and other bodily injuries and instantaneously died at the spot. The deceased Somappa Dundappa Kadlennavar was 53 years old at the time of occurrence of the accident. He was doing mason work under a labour contractor by name Ravi Tayappa Gunjikar and thereby was earning Rs.24,000/- per month. He was also working as a watchman during night hours at Kamadhenu Apartment and thereby he was getting salary of Rs.7,000/- p.m. He was also earning Rs.3,000/- p.m.

¶29

by washing cars of Apartment owners. He was contributing his entire income for the maintenance

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12775 MFA No. 102554 of 2020

¶31

of his family. Due to his untimely demise, the petitioners i.e., his wife, son and old aged mother have lost their only bread earning member and his love and affection. They have also incurred huge expenses for transportation of dead body and in performing last rites of the deceased. Hence, they made a claim petition seeking compensation.

¶32

The Tribunal after recording evidence and on appreciation of the evidence has awarded

¶33

compensation as under:

¶34

1.	Loss ofdependency	10,04,399/-
2.	Loss ofconsortium	40,000/-
3.	Lost of estate	15,000/-
4.	Funeral expenses	15,000/-
	Total Rs.	10,74,399/-

¶35

Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12775 MFA No. 102554 of 2020

¶37

Heard the learned counsel for the

¶38

appellants and the leaned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶39

Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the deceased was working as a construction worker in the construction work and he was getting Rs.500/- per day and in that regard PW.2 has issued Ex.P-10-certificate stating that the deceased was working as a mason and getting Rs.500/- per day. He further submits that apart from mason work, the deceased was working as a watchman in the apartment and the Apartment Association has issued Ex.P-11-certificate to the effect that the deceased was getting Rs.2,800/- per month. He contends that the Tribunal has not awarded compensation towards consortium and therefore, the claimants are entitled to consortium in a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- (i.e. Rs.40,000x3). With this, he prayed to allow the appeal and enhance the compensation.

¶40

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12775 MFA No. 102554 of 2020

¶41

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 would

¶42

contend that PW.2 was a contractor, who was supplying the labours and he has not employed the deceased and the Tribunal has considered the said aspect. He further contends that as per Ex.P-14 deceased was working as a construction labour/helper and therefore he is not a skilled labour and he is an unskilled coolie labour. He further contended that considering all these aspects, the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation under the head loss of dependency. He submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is just and proper. With this, he prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶43

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

¶44

It is not in dispute that the accident has taken place in the year 2017 and the deceased was

¶45

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12775 MFA No. 102554 of 2020

¶46

aged 50 yeas as on the date of the accident. Ex.P10 is the certificate issued by PW.2 wherein it is stated that the deceased was getting Rs.500/- per day. PW.2 is a contractor who was supplying labours for construction work. Ex.P-14-identity card of the deceased issued by the Karnataka Building and other Construction Workers’ Welfare Board, indicate that nature of the job of the deceased was construction labour/helper. Considering the said aspect, it is clear that the deceased was working as a construction labour and was getting Rs.500/- per day. Merely because PW.2 was a contractor supplying labours, his evidence cannot be discarded. The claimants have not examined the author of Ex.P11 in which it is stated that the deceased was getting Rs.2,800/- per month for the work of watchman. Considering the said aspect, the deceased was getting income of Rs.500/- per day. In view of the same, loss of dependency to be calculated is as under:

¶47

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12775 MFA No. 102554 of 2020

¶48

Rs.500/-x30=15,000+10% future prospects = Rs.16,500/- less 1/3=11,000/-

¶49

Rs.11,000x12x11=Rs.14,52,000/-.

¶50

The Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs.15,000/- each

¶51

towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. The appellants are entitled to compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- towards loss of consortium. In view of the above, the appellants/claimants are entitled to compensation as under:

¶52

Sl.	HEADS	Amount in Rs.
No.
1	Loss of dependency	14,52,000/-
2	Loss of consortium	1,20,000/-
3	Loss of estate	15,000/-
4	Funeral expenses	15,000/-
	TOTAL	16,02,000/-

¶53

The appellants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.16,02,000/as against Rs.10,74,399/awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6% per annum.

¶54

In the result, the following

¶55

9 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12775 MFA No. 102554 of 2020

¶56

ORDER

¶57

The appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 06.07.2019 passed by the learned X Additional District Judge and Additional MACT, Belagavi, in MVC No.2412/2017, is modified. The appellants/claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.16,02,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

¶58

Respondent No.2-insurance company is directed to pay the entire compensation amount with interest within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment, failing which, it is liable to pay interest at 9% per annum.

¶59

Apportionment as ordered by the Tribunal remains unaltered.

¶60

The appellants/claimants are entitled to release of entire compensation amount.

¶61

Draw award accordingly.

¶62

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶63

Kmv CT:ANB

Smt Chennavva W/O.Somappa Kadlennavar v. Shri Ningappa S/O. Ramu Kumbar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Chennavva W/O.Somappa Kadlennavar v. Shri Ningappa S/O. Ramu Kumbar

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

Kumar. Hasanain Mohammadesak Mujawar Vs Mohammadesak Allahuddin Mujawar

Narasimha S/O Venkataraman Sabhahit Vs the State of Karnataka

Suresh Kallappa Tuppad Vs the State of Karnataka

The Divisional Controller Vs Lakshmi Narayana S/O Sheshanna

The Executive Engineer Vs the Special Additional Land Acquisition Officer

Iravva Vs Abdul Rehman