Chitramma and Anr. Vs the Divisional Manager

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN M.V.C. NO.328/2018 DATED 29-10-2021 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. M.A.C.T. AT BHALKI, ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29-10-2021 PASSED IN M.V.C. NO.328/2018 BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. M.A.C.T. AT BHALKI, AND ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION FROM RS.12,64,000/WITH 6 PERCENT INTEREST TO RS.35,00,000/- WITH 12 PERCENT INTEREST.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN AND

¶24

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)

¶27

Though this appeal is listed for hearing on

¶28

interlocutory application, with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.

¶29

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award dated 29.10.2021 passed in MVC No.328/2018 by the Senior Civil Judge & Addl. MACT, Bhalki, at Bhalki.

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2269-DB MFA No. 202645 of 2022

¶31

Brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are

¶32

that, the parents of the deceased have filed the claim petition seeking for compensation for the accidental death of their son on 25.03.2018, when he was proceeding on motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-39/Q-1228 from Dhannura-H to Bhalki, at that time, one TSRTC Bus bearing registration No.AP-29/Z-3531 came from opposite direction driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle, which resulted in the accidental death of the son of claimants. The respondent-Corporation entered appearance opposed the claim petition by denying the age, occupation and avocation of the deceased.

¶33

The claimant No.1 was examined herself as PW.1 and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P8. On the other hand, respondent did not lead any evidence. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence awarded the total compensation of Rs.12,64,600/- along with interest at the

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2269-DB MFA No. 202645 of 2022

¶35

rate of 6% p.a. Being aggrieved by the same, this appeal is preferred.

¶36

Sri. Babu H.Metagudda, learned counsel

¶37

appearing for the appellants submits that the Tribunal has committed a grave error in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month by ignoring the notional income chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for the year 2018 and as per the chart the income ought to have been assessed at Rs.11,750/-. It is submitted that the claimants are also entitled for addition 40% under the head loss of future prospects and Rs.40,000/- each under the head loss of consortium and additionally a sum of Rs.30,000/- under the conventional heads. Hence, he seeks to re-assess the compensation by allowing the appeal.

¶38

Per contra, Sri. S.V.Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Insurance Company supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that the appellants have produced

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2269-DB MFA No. 202645 of 2022

¶40

Ex.P8, the salary certificate which indicates that the deceased was drawing salary of Rs.10,770/- and after deducting it would be approximately Rs.8,000/- which has been considered by the Tribunal in assessing the compensation which does not call for any modification. He further submits that the award of compensation by the Tribunal on all other heads is just and proper and does not call for any modification. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.

¶41

We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and learned counsel for the Insurance Company and meticulously perused the material on record.

¶42

The only point that arises for our consideration

¶43

in this appeal is:

¶44

“Whether the appellants are entitled for higher compensation?”

¶45

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2269-DB MFA No. 202645 of 2022

¶46

It is not in dispute that on 25.03.2018 the

¶47

deceased Kallappa son of the claimants met with the road accident due to the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the bus bearing registration No.AP-29/Z3531. The deceased was aged about 23 years at the time of accident and working in Pavan Security Services and

¶48

drawing Rs.10,770/-. In support of the income, the claimants have produced Ex.P8, the salary certificate. It is contended that after the duty hours as a Security, the deceased used to attend in other agencies. However, they did not have any proof of income. Admittedly, the Tribunal has not considered Ex.P8 in assessing the income of the deceased. Hence, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the interest of justice would be met, if we re-assess the income of the deceased at Rs.11,750/- per month placing reliance on the notional income chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority.

¶49

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2269-DB MFA No. 202645 of 2022

¶50

In view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and others¹ , the appellants are entitled for addition of 40% (Rs.4,700) of the assessed income under the loss of future prospects. Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.16,450/. Out of which, it is appropriate to deduct 50% of Rs.16,450/towards personal expenses as the deceased was bachelor at the time of accident and the appropriate multiplier would be 18. Therefore, the claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.17,76,600/- (Rs.8,225 x 12 x 18) on account of loss of dependency.

¶51

Further, the claimants are also entitled for loss of consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanuram

¶52

1 AIR 2017 SC 5157

¶53

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2269-DB MFA No. 202645 of 2022

¶54

alias Chuhru Ram & others² and they are also entitled

¶55

for Rs.30,000/- under the conventional heads.

¶56

Hence, the compensation is re-assessed as

¶57

under:

¶58

The computation of enhancement:

¶59

Description	Amount
Loss of dependency	Rs.17,76,600
Loss of consortium (Rs.40,000/- x 4)	Rs.80,000
Loss of estate and funeral expenses	Rs.30,000
Total	Rs.18,86,600
Award of the Tribunal	Rs.12,64,600/-

¶60

Thus, the claimants would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.18,86,600/as against Rs.12,64,600/- awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, the claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.6,22,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a.

¶61

For the aforementioned reasons, we proceed to

¶62

pass the following:

¶63

2 2018 ACJ 2782

¶64

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2269-DB MFA No. 202645 of 2022

¶65

ORDER

¶66

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶67

(ii) The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified.

¶68

(iii) The appellants/claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs.18,86,600/- which shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶69

(iv) The respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit the entire compensation amount before the Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.

¶70

(v) The judgment insofar as apportionment and deposit of the Tribunal is unaltered.

¶71

Sd/(K NATARAJAN) JUDGE

¶72

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶73

MSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22 CT:SI

Chitramma and Anr. v. the Divisional Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chitramma and Anr. v. the Divisional Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anusuya P Chavan Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Nandappa Vs the Central University of Karnataka and Ors.

Reshma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt. Lalitabai and Anr. Vs Prahaladrao and Anr.

Smt Sangeeta Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Laxmi and Ors. Vs Sri Budesab and Anr.