Ramachandra Vs Shashidhara

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:12289 MFA No. 7246 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7246 OF 2023 (MV-D)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

RAMACHANDRA

¶7

S/O RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS ARICULTURIST R/AT ANDAVALLI HECHE VILLAGE SORABA TALUK NOW R/AT C/O VENKOJIRAO 5^TH CROSS, A BLOCK SHARAVATHI NAGAR SHIVAMOGGA 577 221

¶8

Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

RATHNA W/O RAMACHANDRA AGED ABOUT 51YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/AT ANDAVALLI HECHE VILLAGE SORABA TALUK NOW R/AT C/O VENKOJIRAO 5^TH CROSS, A BLOCK SHARAVATHI NAGAR SHIVAMOGA 577 221

¶10

SMT.SHWETHA R W/O HALAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS HOUSE WIFE R./AT ABASE BILISIRI PADAVAGODU SAGAR TALUK SHIVAMOGGA 577 221

¶11

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12289 MFA No. 7246 of 2023

¶12

SMT.SHILPA R W/O LOKESHA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS HOUSE WIFE R/AT KAKKARASI MUTUGOPPA SORABA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA 577 221

¶13

…APPELLANTS

¶14

(BY SRI. M V MAHESWARAPPA.,ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

SHASHIDHARA S/O HANUMANTHAPPANAIK MAJOR R/AT ANDOLLI VILLAGE SORABA TALUK SHIVAMOGA 577 221

¶17

JAIRAMA S/O HANUMANTHAPPA NAIK, MAJOR

¶18

R/AT ANDOLLI VILLAGE SORABA TALUK SHIVAMOGA 577 221

¶19

THE MANAGER SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. E-8,IICO INDUSTRIAL AREA SITAPURA , JAIPUR RAJASTHAN 302 022 POLICY NO. 418009/31/19/002419 VALID FROM 23-10-2018 TO 22-10-2019

¶20

CHANDRAKANTH S/O UMESH MADIVAL MAJOR R/AT ANDOLLI VILLAGE SORABA TALUK SHIVAMOGA 577 221

¶21

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12289 MFA No. 7246 of 2023

¶22

PRASHANTH S/O UMESHA MADIVAL MAJOR R/O ANDOLLI VILLAGE SORABA TALUK RIDER OF MOTOR NO.KA 15 Y -5210

¶23

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD B.H. ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA 577 221 POLICY NO. 2404033118P114810070

¶24

… RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI.MALLIKARJUNA REDDY, N.A., ADVOCATE FOR SRI B.C.SHIVANNE GOWDA., ADVOCATE FOR R-3; SRI RAVISH BENNI., ADVOCATE FOR R-6; R-1, R-2, R-4 & R5 ARE SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

¶26

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.07.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO. 430/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AND ADDITIONAL MACT, SHIVAMOGGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ALSO TO FIX THE LIABILITY AGAISNT RESPONDENT NO.3.

¶27

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

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶29

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12289 MFA No. 7246 of 2023

¶30

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶31

This appeal is preferred by the appellants – claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 7^th July 2023 passed in MVC No.430/2020 on the file of the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge & CJM & AMACT, Shivamogga (‘the Tribunal’ for short). This appeal is founded on the premise

¶32

of inadequate and meager compensation awarded by the Tribunal and also to direct the respondent No.3 - insurance company to pay the compensation based on the principle of ' pay and recovery '.

¶33

Parties shall be referred to as per their status before the Tribunal.

¶34

Brief facts of the case are as under:

¶35

On 26.5.2019 one Mohan Ramachandra was

¶36

travelling as a pillion rider on the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-15X-1405 which was ridden by the 2^nd respondent from Soraba towards Siddapura. When the two wheeler reached near Haladaghatta, Pullkatte,

¶37

5 -

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:12289 MFA No. 7246 of 2023

¶39

Siddapura-Soraba road, Siddapura, at that time, another two wheeler ridden by Respondent No.5 bearing registration No.KA-15Y-5210 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the vehicle, which was ridden by the 2^nd respondent, in which Mohan Ramachandra was a pillion rider. Due to the occurrence of the accident and impact of the vehicle, Mohan Ramachandra fell down and sustained grievous injuries and he was immediately shifted to Government hospital, Siddapura and thereafter to Father Muller Hospital, Mangalore for better treatment and later while he was being shifted to Bangalore hospital, he succumbed to the injuries on 1.6.2019. In this regard, the Police have registered the case in Crime No.97/2019 against riders of both the offending vehicles. The appellant Nos.1 and 2 are parents of the deceased Mohan Ramachandra and appellant nos.3 and 4 are sisters of the deceased.

¶40

3.1 It is also pleaded that prior to occurrence of accident, deceased was hale and healthy and he was a skilled labour under a Contractor and earning Rs.20,000/-

¶41

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12289 MFA No. 7246 of 2023

¶42

per month. In view of sudden and untimely death of the deceased, the claimants lost their bread-earner so also his love and affection. Hence, the claimants preferred a claim petition seeking compensation against insurance companies of both the motor vehicles involved in the accident.

¶43

3.2 On appearance, respondents filed their respective written statements denying the averments made in the claim petition and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶44

3.3 On the basis of the material evidence, both oral and documentary, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.22,42,000/- with interest at 6% per annum and directed Respondent nos.1 and 2 to pay 50% of the compensation and Respondent No.6 to pay balance 50% of the compensation.

¶45

3.4 Being aggrieved by the inadequate compensation

¶46

awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants – claimants are before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation

¶47

7 -

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:12289 MFA No. 7246 of 2023

¶49

and also to direct Respondent No.3 - insurance company

¶50

to pay the compensation on the principle of 'pay and recovery'.

¶51

I have heard learned counsels for the parties.

¶52

It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for the appellants – claimants that during the life time of the deceased, he was a skilled labour in cement blocks and earning Rs.20,000/- per month, but the Tribunal has taken notional income of Rs.14,000/- per month, which is on the lower side. It is also contended that the Tribunal has failed to award consortium to appellant Nos.3 and 4 – claimants 3 and 4, who are sisters of the deceased. It is also contended that the Tribunal has not fastened liability against Respondent No.3, who is the insurer of two wheeler belonging to Respondent No.1, as the policy was in force as on the date of occurrence of the accident. Therefore, learned counsel seeks to enhance the compensation, direct Respondent No.3/insurer of two wheeler belonging to respondent no.1, to pay the

¶53

8 -

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC:12289 MFA No. 7246 of 2023

¶55

compensation and recover the same from Respondent No.1 by following the principle of ‘pay and recovery’. On

¶56

these grounds, he seeks to allow his appeal.

¶57

Per contra, learned counsels representing the respondent No.3 and respondent No.6 contend that the Tribunal awarded just and reasonable compensation under all heads, in accordance with the material evidence, both oral and documentary and the same does not call for interference. It is further contended by learned counsels representing insurance companies of both the vehicles that in view of non-production of any material with regard to income, the Tribunal is justified in taking the notional income as per the Legal Services Authority chart, which does not call for interference as neither it is arbitrary nor illegal.

¶58

6.1 Learned counsel for Respondent No.3 further contends that the Tribunal rightly exonerated Respondent No.3/insurance company and directed Respondent Nos.1

¶59

and 2 to pay the compensation for the reason that

¶60

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:12289 MFA No. 7246 of 2023

¶61

Respondent No.2, who was riding the vehicle did not have the valid and effective Driving Licence as on the date of occurrence of the accident. Therefore, in view of breach of conditions of the policy, fixation of negligence and liability as against Respondent Nos.1 and 2 is justified. On these grounds, learned counsel for respondent No.3/insurance company seeks dismissal of this appeal.

¶62

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsels for the parties.

¶63

The occurrence of accident, involvement of two vehicles, death having occurred due to the accident, are all proved and established by production of Ex.P1 to Ex.P20. Negligence is rightly attributed against riders of both the vehicles.

¶64

Now, coming to the aspect of age, avocation, income, multiplier and the deduction, the Tribunal is justified in taking the notional income at Rs.14,000/- per month as per the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority chart, in view of non-production of cogent or relevant

¶65

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:12289 MFA No. 7246 of 2023

¶66

material in proof of income. The age of the deceased being 23 years as on the date of occurrence of the accident, the appropriate multiplier applicable would be ‘18’ and the same is taken by the Tribunal, which does not call for interference. In view of the fact that the deceased

¶67

was unmarried and bachelor, the Tribunal rightly added 40% towards future prospects and deducted 50% towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, which does not call for interference. Therefore, the compensation of Rs.21,16,800/- {(Rs.14,000 plus 40% minus 50%) x 12 x 18} awarded under the head of ‘loss of dependency’ does not call for interference and the same is retained.

¶68

Towards loss of consortium, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.80,000/-. In view of the fact that appellant Nos.1 and 2 are parents and appellant Nos.3 and 4 are sisters, each would be entitled to Rs.40,000/- in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

¶69

National Insurance Company Limited -vs- Pranay

¶70

Sethi and others reported in (2017)16 SCC 680.

¶71

11 -

¶72

NC: 2025:KHC:12289 MFA No. 7246 of 2023

¶73

Therefore, Rs.1,60,000/- is awarded towards loss of consortium as against Rs.80,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. As per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi, 10% escalation for one block period on the same is to be awarded, which would come to Rs.16,000/- (Rs.1,60,000/- x 10%). In all, the claimants would be entitled to Rs.1,76,000/-

¶74

(Rs.1,60,000/- plus Rs.16,000/-) under this head.

¶75

The Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards 'transportation of dead body and funeral expenses', in all Rs.30,000/-. As per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi, 10% escalation for one block period on the same is to be awarded, which would come to Rs.3,000/(Rs.30,000/- x 10%). In all, the claimants would be entitled to Rs.33,000/- (Rs.30,000/- plus Rs.3,000) under this head.

¶76

12 -

¶77

NC: 2025:KHC:12289 MFA No. 7246 of 2023

¶78

The Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards

¶79

medical expenses on the basis of the actual bills produced by the claimants, which does not call for interference.

¶80

In view of the above, the claimants would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.23,40,800/- as against Rs.22,42,000/- awarded by the tribunal, as mentioned in the table below:

¶81

Sl. No.	Head of compensation	Amount of compensation awarded
1	Loss of dependency	Rs.21,16,800-00
2	Loss of consortium	Rs. 1,76,000-00
3	Loss of estate	Rs. 16.500-00
4	Funeral expenses	Rs. 16,500-00
5	Medical expenses	Rs. 15,000-00
	Total	Rs.23,40,800-00

¶82

Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently

¶83

contends that the Tribunal has committed an error in fixing the liability as against Respondent Nos.1 and 2 (owner and rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-15X-1405) and absolving the liability of Respondent

¶84

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:12289 MFA No. 7246 of 2023

¶85

No.3 - insurance company on the ground that respondent No.2 - rider of the motorcycle was not having valid and effective Driving Licence as on the date of occurrence of the accident. The fact remains the policy was in force as on the date of accident. Therefore, the principle of ‘pay and recovery’ ought to have been applied by the Tribunal, which has not been done in the present case. I am in agreement with the argument of learned counsel for appellants for the reason that policy being in force as on the date of the accident, principle of ‘pay and recovery ‘ ought to have been applied and Respondent No.3, who has been exonerated by the Tribunal is liable to pay compensation and it would be at liberty to recover the same from Respondent No.1/owner and respondent No.2/driver of the offending vehicle.

¶86

It is also seen that the Tribunal has apportioned

¶87

the compensation at the rate of 30% to appellant no.1 and 70% to appellant No.2, who are father and mother respectively. This Court deems it appropriate to apportion

¶88

14 -

¶89

NC: 2025:KHC:12289 MFA No. 7246 of 2023

¶90

the compensation in the ratio of 50: 50 between appellant Nos.1 and 2/father and mother. Accordingly, the apportionment shall be equal to both the parents at 50% each. Further, appellant Nos.3 and 4 shall be entitled to only consortium amount of Rs.44,000/- each.

¶91

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶92

O R D E R

¶93

i) The appeal is allowed in part .

¶94

ii) The impugned Judgment & Award dated 7^th July, 2023 passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.430/2020, is modified.

¶95

iii) The appellants/claimants would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.23,40,800/- (Rupees twenty-three lakhs forty thousand eight hundred only) as against Rs.22,42,000/awarded by the tribunal, alongwith interest at 6 % per annum.

¶96

iv) The impugned judgment insofar as directing Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to pay 50% of the compensation, is retained along with Respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 (insurer of motorcycle bearing No.KA-15X-

¶97

15 -

¶98

NC: 2025:KHC:12289 MFA No. 7246 of 2023

¶99

shall pay 50% of the compensation and would be at liberty to recover the same from respondent Nos.1 and 2 - owner and driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration No.KA-15X-1405.

¶100

v) The appellant Nos.1 and 2 shall be entitled to compensation in the ratio of 50: 50, whereas appellant Nos.3 and 4 would be entitled to only consortium amount of Rs.44,000/- each.

¶101

vi) The enhanced compensation shall be paid with interest at 6% per annum by the Respondent Nos.3 and 6 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

¶102

vii) The compensation amount shall be released in favour of the appellants-claimants as per the terms of the tribunal by Electronic transfer to the claimants upon furnishing the required bank details/upon proper identification.

¶103

viii) All other terms and conditions stipulated by the tribunal shall stand intact.

¶104

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶105

GSS

¶106

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47

Ramachandra v. Shashidhara

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramachandra v. Shashidhara

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

Muzammil Pasha Vs Abida Banu @ Bibi Ayesha

Sri J Harinath Rao Vs Smt Swetha K

Meena Devi Vs the Manager

Anand K S Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Amula Baburao Belgavkar Vs State of Karnataka

Basavaraj Matigar Vs the State of Karnataka