Yashodamma Vs Basavaraja

AGADI ASHOKA S/O KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OWNER OF MOTOR VEHICLE, ADITYA GAS DISTRIBUTOR, HALE POST KERI, SHIRALAKOPPA, SHIKARIPUR TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 428 (OWNER OF LORRY BEARING NO. KA 15 6274)

¶21

DIVISIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., J.C.ROAD, SORAB TOWN, SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 429.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. GURUPRASDA B R, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2 SRI. ANUP SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶24

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.08.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.22/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT-XIII, SORAB, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL and

¶27

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶28

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶29

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA)

¶30

The present appeal is filed by the claimants challenging

¶31

the judgment and award dated 24.08.2015 passed in MVC

¶32

3 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:624-DB MFA No. 8908/2015

¶34

No.22/2013 by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT-XIII, Sorab¹ seeking enhancement of the compensation.

¶35

The parties will be referred to as per their ranks before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

¶36

The appellants/claimants instituted the claim proceedings, claiming compensation for the death of one Basavarajappa² in a road traffic accident which occurred on 14.02.2012. It is the case of the claimants that when the deceased was proceeding on his motorcycle along with his son from his hometown Induvalli village to Shiralakoppa when they reached near Chikkasavi Rathnakatte lake, a lorry bearing registration No.KA-15-6274 being driven in a rash and negligent manner came and hit the motorcycle causing the accident in question wherein the deceased died on the spot. The wife, son and mother of the deceased instituted claim proceedings arraying the driver, owner and insurer of the lorry as respondents in the claim proceedings. The owner and insurer of the lorry contested the claim proceedings.

¶37

1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’

¶38

2 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’

¶39

4 -

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:624-DB MFA No. 8908/2015

¶41

The Tribunal by its judgment and award dated 24.08.2015, has awarded a total compensation of `5,01,000/and ordered that the 3^rd respondent / insurer shall pay the compensation awarded. Being aggrieved, the claimants have preferred the above appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation.

¶42

The finding of the Tribunal on negligence and liability have not been challenged and have attained finality. Hence, only the aspect regarding to the quantum of compensation is adjudicated in the present appeal.

¶43

This Court by order dated 05.12.2023 had directed the Tribunal to record the evidence of the employer of the deceased with regard to the income of the deceased, pursuant to which, the Tribunal has recorded the testimony of PW.3 and the same has been sent to this Court.

¶44

It is forthcoming that the deceased was aged 49 years as on the date of the accident. The deceased was employed with the Indian Army. Subsequently, he has taken up an another employment. His employer – PW3 has deposed regarding his income and Ex.P.18 to Ex.P.21 have been marked

¶45

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:624-DB MFA No. 8908/2015

¶46

with regard to the income of the deceased. Ex.P.18 discloses that the basic pay of the deceased at the time of accident was 11,700/-, D.A. was 8,132/- and HRA 702/-. Hence, total income of the deceased was 20,534/-. A sum of 1,200/- was deducted towards Professional Tax and Income Tax. Accordingly, the net income of the deceased is re-assessed 19,334/-. 30% is required to be added towards ‘future prospects’ in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi³ and 1/3^rd of his income to be deducted towards personal expenses. Since the age of the claimant was 49 years at the time of accident, the Tribunal has applied the multiplier ‘13’ which is just and proper. Hence, the income for the purpose of assessing ‘loss of dependency’ is re-assessed as 19,334/- + 5,800/- = 25,134/- - 1/3<sup>rd</sup> = 16,756/-. Hence, ‘loss of dependency’ is re-assessed as (16,756 x 12 x 13) 26,13,936/-.

¶47

Having regard to the number of claimants, loss of consortium is required to be awarded, having regard to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma

¶48

3 (2017) 16 SCC 680

¶49

6 -

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:624-DB MFA No. 8908/2015

¶51

General Insurance Co. Limited Vs. Nanu Ram & Others⁴

¶52

and accordingly, loss of consortium is awarded as (44,000 x 3) 1,32,000/-.

¶53

Loss of Estate and funeral expenses is required to

¶54

be awarded in a sum of `16,500/- on each head.

¶55

In view of the aforementioned, the compensation is

¶56

re-assessed as follows:

¶57

Sl.No.	Heads	Amount awarded by the Tribunal (`)	Amount awarded by this Court (`)
1.	Loss of dependency	396000.00	2613936.00
2.	Loss of love and affection	30000.00	00.00
3.	Loss of estate	30000.00	16500.00
4.	Funeral expenses	20000.00	16500.00
5.	Transportation of dead body	5000.00	00
6.	Loss of consortium	20000.00	132000.00
	Total	501000.00	2778936.00

¶58

The compensation is required to be enhanced by

¶59

(27,78,936/- - 5,01,000/-) = `22,77,936/- with interest @

¶60

6% per annum.

¶61

4 2018 ACJ 2782

¶62

7 -

¶63

NC: 2025:KHC:624-DB MFA No. 8908/2015

¶64

12. Hence, the following:

¶65

ORDER

¶66

i. The appeal is partly allowed;

¶67

ii. Claimants are held entitled to enhanced compensation of `22,77,936/- with interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal;

¶68

iii. Respondent No.3/Insurer shall deposit the enhanced compensation before the Tribunal within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order;

¶69

iv. Award of the Tribunal with regard to apportionment and investment is maintained;

¶70

v. Registry shall transmit the records to the Tribunal forthwith.

¶71

Sd/(K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE

¶72

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶73

BS

¶74

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31

Yashodamma v. Basavaraja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yashodamma v. Basavaraja

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

Sriram General Insurance Com Ltd. Vs Mrs Lethipa

M/S Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. R Lakshmi

Smt. S.L. Geetha Vs Sri J. Ramesh

Mr. Sumantha K S Vs Mrs. Shruthi P

Raghavendra Devadiga Vs Manjunatha