AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS, MINOR REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN, ADOPTED FATHER BY NAME N. NAGARAJ, S/O NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O KAREKHALEEL BEEDI, SIRA TOWN-572 137, TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

[BY SRI RAJENDRA HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI S.V. HEGDE MULKHAND, ADVOCATE FOR R1 (VC); NOTICE TO R2 & R3 ARE D/W V/O DATED 20.08.2024]

¶21

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.04.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.681/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, SIRA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶22

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS , THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

Challenging judgment and award dated 13.04.2018 passed by Senior Civil Judge & Additional MACT, Sira, in MVC no.681/2014, this appeal is filed.

¶26

Sri V.B.Siddaramaiah, learned counsel for appellant submitted that appeal was by claimants for enhancement of compensation. It was submitted, claimants' son, Kallesh, aged 28 years was mason and agriculturist earning Rs.15,000/-

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:33240 MFA No. 2452 of 2019

¶29

per month. On 25.01.2014 at about 10:30 A.M., when he was walking by side of Bukkapatna-Sira road near Reliance Petrol Bunk, a Tractor bearing Registration no.KA-06-TA-4763, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against Kallesh resulting in his death. Due to his untimely death, claimants-parents and respondent no.3-daughter sustained loss of dependency. They filed claim petition against owner and insurer of Tractor under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act. On service of notice, owner and insurer entered appearance and opposed claim petition.

¶30

Based on pleadings, Tribunal framed issues and

¶31

recorded evidence. Claimant no.1 was examined as PW.1 and one Lokesh was examined as PW.2. Exhibits P1 to P14 were got marked. No evidence was led by respondents.

¶32

On consideration, Tribunal answered issue no.1 in affirmative; issue no.2 and additional issue no.1 in partly affirmative and answered issue no.3 by allowing claim petition in part and holding claimants and respondent no.3 entitled for compensation of Rs.10,62,068/- with interest at 9% p.a., from date of claim petition till realization and holding respondent

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:33240 MFA No. 2452 of 2019

¶35

no.2 liable to pay same. Aggrieved by quantum, claimants are in appeal.

¶36

It was submitted, in claim petition, claimants had stated that deceased Kallesh was working as mason and agriculturist and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. However, Tribunal considered notional income at Rs.7,000/- per month. Accident occurred in year 2014. Therefore, notional income of Rs.8,500/- per month ought to have been considered. It was also submitted that Tribunal erred in not adding future prospects to monthly income and assessment of compensation under conventional heads were on lower side and sought for allowing appeal.

¶37

On other hand, Sri Rajendra Hegde, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri S.V.Hegde Mulkhand, learned counsel for Insurer sought to oppose enhancement. It was submitted, respondent no.3-daughter was shown as adopted and therefore, she would not be dependent on deceased. It was submitted, claimants have failed to lead any evidence regarding monthly income and therefore, notional income of Rs.7,000/- was considered by Tribunal. It was submitted, Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.1 Lakh towards love and filial

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:33240 MFA No. 2452 of 2019

¶39

affection; and Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses and transportation, which was excessive. It was submitted even rate of interest awarded at 9% p.a., which was excessive and leave no scope for enhancement.

¶40

Heard learned counsel on both side and perused impugned judgment and award.

¶41

From above, it is seen that claimants are in this appeal for enhancement of compensation. Therefore, only point that would arise for consideration is:

¶42

" Whether claimants are entitled for compensation as sought for?".

¶43

Occurrence of accident leading to death of claimants' son, Kallesh due to rash and negligent driving of insured vehicle by its driver is not in dispute. Coverage of insurance as on date of accident and since insurer has not preferred appeal against award, liability of insurer to pay award is also not in dispute.

¶44

In so far as monthly income, though claimants stated that deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month as mason and agriculturist, same is not substantiated with any

¶45

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:33240 MFA No. 2452 of 2019

¶46

record. In absence of proof of income, notional income for year 2014 i.e., Rs.8,500/- per month ought to have been considered. In so far as future prospects, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 has held, future prospects would required to be added to monthly income. Since deceased was aged 28 years and was self-employed, future prospects at 40% requires to be added. Likewise, as per ratio laid down in Pranay Sethi , 1/3^rd has to be deducted towards personal expenses and applicable multiplier would be '17'.

¶47

Thus, compensation under head of loss of dependency would be as follows:

¶48

Rs.8,500+40%-1/31217 = Rs.16,18,332/-.

¶49

Though insurer has contended, due to adoption of daughter of deceased, she would not be a dependant and not entitled for compensation. Same is stated only to be rejected as only after incident of death of her father, she has been adopted and mere adoption would not establish that respondent no.3 would not have any love and affection towards her natural father.

¶50

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:33240 MFA No. 2452 of 2019

¶51

In view of above, compensation under conventional heads has to be assessed by following ratio laid down in Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram and Others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 , Rs.40,000/- has to be awarded to each of claimants and respondent no.3 and in addition, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses & transportation; and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate has to be awarded. Since more than three years have lapsed after date of disposal of Pranay Sethi , an addition of 10% is made to award under conventional heads i.e., Rs.15,000/-.

¶52

Thus total compensation can be tabulated as

¶53

follows:

¶54

SL.NO.	PARTICULARS	AMOUNT
1.	Loss of dependency	Rs.16,18,332/-
2.	Conventional head	Rs.1,65,000/-
	TOTAL	Rs.17,83,332/-
LESS:	Compensation awarded by Tribunal	Rs.10,62,068/-
ENHA	NCED COMPENSATION	Rs.7,21,264/-

¶55

¶56

NC: 2024:KHC:33240 MFA No. 2452 of 2019

¶57

Thus there would be enhancement of compensation of Rs.7,21,264/-. Point for consideration is answered

¶58

partly affirmative as above. Consequently, following:

¶59

ORDER

¶60

(i) Appeal is allowed in part ;

¶61

(ii) Claimants and respondent no.3 are entitled for compensation of Rs.17,83,332/as against Rs.10,62,068/- awarded by Tribunal;

¶62

(iii) There is enhancement of compensation at Rs.7,21,264/-, which shall carry interest at rate of 6% p.a. from date of claim petition till deposit;

¶63

(iv) Insurer is directed to deposit enhanced compensation before Tribunal within six weeks; and

¶64

(v) Apportionment and direction regarding deposit is as per order passed by Tribunal proportionate to enhanced compensation.

¶65

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶66

¶67

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3

Sri Sannakariyappa v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Sri Sannakariyappa v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

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

Mr v Lakshmi Pathi Vs Mr D Sadayan

Cheluvaraju Vs Dr Sujatha Desai

Siddaraju Vs L and T General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Rohith Vs the Managing Director

M C Udaya Kumar Vs Mahaboob Basha

Sri.L.Siddegowda Vs Kumara