Neeraja @ Neerajakshi Vs Bola Srinivasa Kamath

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 07.07.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.713/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND AMACT, KARKALA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA)

¶28

Claimants have preferred the present appeal challenging

¶29

the Judgment and Award dated 07^th July 2015 passed in MVC No.713 of 2014 by the Senior Civil Judge & Additional Motor Accident Tribunal, Karkala (for short hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal"). By the impugned Judgment and award, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.6,08,960/- with

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:23653-DB MFA No. 302 of 2016

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till its realisation.

¶34

Sri H. Pavanachadra Shetty, Learned Counsel

¶35

appearing for the claimant-appellant would submit that the deceased-Narayana Acharya aged 53 years as on the date of accident, was a Civil Contractor by profession and was earning Rs.70,000/- per month. But the Tribunal has committed an error in considering the income only at Rs.5,000/- per month, which is highly arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. The appellants are wife and daughter of the deceased and were wholly dependent on the income of the deceased for their livelihood. It is submitted that on account of accidental death of the sole bread-earner of the family, the appellants

¶36

have not only suffered mental agony, but are also put to pecuniary loss. The learned Counsel would further submit that the Tribunal has not awarded a just compensation under other heads and sought for enhancement in the compensation.

¶37

On the contrary, Sri A.N. Krishnaswamy, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent-Insurance Company, would submit that the Tribunal has appreciated the documents

¶38

4 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:23653-DB MFA No. 302 of 2016

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

on record in its proper perspective and has awarded a just compensation, which does not call for interference in this appeal and accordingly sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶42

Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, we have examined the materials placed before us.

¶43

PW1- Neeraj @ Neerajakshi, wife of the deceased, has deposed in her evidence that prior to accident, the deceased was aged about 53 years and was hale and healthy. He was the sole breadwinner in the family. She has further deposed that her husband was an architect and civil engineer

¶44

and had special knowledge in civil works and building architecture. Her husband undertook civil and building architecture works from the age of 20 and had gained expertise in that field. She has also produced the copy of Register of wage books maintained by deceased as to the works carried out by labourers employed by him in and around Karkala Taluk to whom he used to pay salary. She has produced day-books, nine in number, maintained by the deceased towards his civil contract engagements.

¶45

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:23653-DB MFA No. 302 of 2016

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

PW2-Jayaram Acharya, civil contractor, has

¶48

deposed as to the contract work carried out by deceased Narayana Acharya in Karkala Taluk and other places. He has deposed that the deceased used to give sub-contract works every year worth Rs.20-25 lakhs and was earning Rs.2,00,000/- annually. It is not in dispute that the deceased was a Civil Contractor and undertook civil works on piece-meal basis and also on contract basis. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month, which according to us, is on the lower side. Considering the evidence of PWs1 & 2, Exhibits P15 and P16-Salary disbursement Registers and MOs1 to 9, i.e., books maintained by deceasedNarayana Acharya towards Civil Contract works, we are of the considered view that it is just and proper to assess the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month. As per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, 10% is to be added towards future prospects. Accordingly, the income of the deceased would come to Rs.11,000/- per month.

¶49

6 -

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:23653-DB MFA No. 302 of 2016

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

The Accident Information Report Register extract

¶53

reveals that the deceased was aged 53 years as on the date of accident. Postmortem report also reveals the same. Hence the appropriate multiplier applicable, commensurate to the age of the deceased, would be 11. Considering the dependents, onethird has to be deducted towards the personal expenditure of deceased. Accordingly, the loss of dependency would be Rs.9,68,000/- (Rs.7,333/- x 12 x 11). As per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PRANAY SETHI (supra), the appellants are entitled for compensation under conventional heads. Accordingly, Rs.80,000/- (Rs.40,000/- each) is awarded towards loss of consortium; Rs.15,000/- each, is awarded towards loss of estate and towards funeral expenses. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:

¶54

O R D E R

¶55

i) Appeal is allowed in part;

¶56

ii) Judgment and award dated 07^th July 2015 passed in MVC No.713 of 2014 by the Senior Civil Judge & Additional Motor Accident Tribunal, Karkala, is modified holding that the

¶57

7 -

¶58

NC: 2025:KHC:23653-DB MFA No. 302 of 2016

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

appellant-claimants are entitled for a compensation of Rs.10,78,000/- as against Rs.6,08,960/- awarded by the Tribunal;

¶61

iii) It is made clear that the enhanced compensation carries interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till deposit;

¶62

iv) Respondent-Insurance company shall deposit the compensation amount along with accrued interest before the Tribunal within sixty days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Judgment;

¶63

v) Registry to draw award accordingly.

¶64

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶65

Sd/(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

¶66

lnn List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51

Neeraja @ Neerajakshi v. Bola Srinivasa Kamath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neeraja @ Neerajakshi v. Bola Srinivasa Kamath

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

Smt. Lalithamma Vs Sri. Siddaveerappa

The Branch Manager Vs Smt. H.S. Anitha

Smt Vasanth Vs Sri.Ramesh M

Sri Ravinandana M.H., Vs M H Kumar

Sri B E Ramegowda Vs State of Karnataka by

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri. Ravikumar