Sri Somanna Vs Sri Sanjeev Poojari

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13974 MFA No. 926 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 6756 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 926 OF 2023 (MV-D) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6756 OF 2022 (MV-D)

¶4

IN MFA No. 926/2023:

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI SOMANNA S/O SANNARANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, CHANNAKESHAVANAGARA, BELUR TOWN & TALUK

¶7

SMT KALYANAMMA W/O SOMANNA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, CHANNAKESHAVANAGARA, BELUR TOWN & TALUK

¶8

Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶9

KUM ASHARANI D/O SOMMANNA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, CHANNAKESHAVANAGARA, BELUR TOWN & TALUK

¶10

(BY SRI.SHRIPAD V SHASTRI.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SRI SANJEEV POOJARI S/O VENKAPPA POOJARI, MAJOR

¶13

…APPELLANTS

¶14

R/AT GURUKRUPA NIVASA, GAANAPADABU, B C ROAD, BANTWALA TALUK, D K DISTRICT

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:13974 MFA No. 926 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 6756 of 2022

¶17

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REPTD BY THE BRANCH MANAGER. HASSAN BRANCH, MANJUNATHA COMPLEX, BUS STAND ROAD, HASSAN TOWN

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SMT.GEETHA RAJ.,ADVOCATE FOR R-2; NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED WITH V.O.D 08.02.2023)

¶20

THIS MFA FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.24.06.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.1574/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, BELUR, HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶21

IN MFA NO. 6756/2022: BETWEEN:

¶22

M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD THE BRANCH MANAGER HASSAN BRANCH MANJUNATHA COMPLEX BUS STAND ROAD, HASSAN REP BY REGIONAL OFFICE SITUATE AT NO. 144, 2^ND FLOOR, SHUBRAM COMPLEX, MG ROAD, BENGALURU 560 001 REP BY REKHA S MENON, DEPUTY MANAGER (BY SMT.GEETHA RAJ.,ADVOCATE)

¶23

… APPELLANT

¶24

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13974 MFA No. 926 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 6756 of 2022

¶25

AND:

¶26

SRI SOMANNA S/O SANNARANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, CHANNAKESHAVANAGARA, BELUR TOWN & TALUK HASSAN - 573 115

¶27

MRS.KALYANAMMA W/O SOMANNA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, CHANNAKESHAVANAGARA, BELUR TOWN & TALUK HASSAN - 573 115

¶28

KUM ASHARANI D/O SOMMANNA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, CHANNAKESHAVANAGARA, BELUR TOWN & TALUK HASSAN - 573 115

¶29

MR.SANJEEV POOJARI S/O VENKAPPA POOJARI, MAJOR R/AT GURUKRUPA NIVASA, GAANA PADABU, B C ROAD, BANTWALA TALUK, D K DISTRICT

¶30

… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SHRIPAD V SHASTRI.,ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3; NOTICE SERVED TO R-4 & UNREPRESENTED)

¶31

THIS MFA FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.24.06.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.1574/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, BELUR, HASSAN, PRAYING TO DISMISS THE CLAIM PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE SAID JUDGMENT AND AWARD.

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13974 MFA No. 926 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 6756 of 2022

¶33

THESE APPEALS, ARE COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶34

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶35

These two appeals – MFA Nos.926/2023 and

¶36

6756/2022 are preferred by the claimants and the insurance company respectively challenging the common judgment & award dated 24^th June 2022 passed in MVC No.1574/2016 by the Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Belur, Hassan district.

¶37

MFA No.926/2023 is preferred by the claimants on the premise of inadequate and meager compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Whereas MFA No.6756/2022 is preferred by the insurance company on the ground that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is perverse, arbitrary, illegal and thereby seeking to set aside the same.

¶38

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

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13974 MFA No. 926 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 6756 of 2022

¶40

Brief facts of the case are as under:

¶41

On 4.6.2015 one D.S. Harisha was returning to

¶42

Belur town after visiting his relatives at Tholalu village on his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-46-J-4572. At about 4.30 p.m., when the deceased reached near Tholalu gate on Belur road, driver of the lorry bearing registration No.KA-19-AC-1617 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against his two wheeler, due to which he sustained grievous injuries and he was taken to the nearby Government Hospital, Beluru and subsequently to Janapriya Hospital, Hasan. Despite giving the best treatment, he succumbed to the injuries. The claimants, who are none other than parents and sister of the deceased filed the claim petition seeking compensation against owner of the offending vehicle and the insurance company.

¶43

4.1 Respondent No.1 – owner of the offending

¶44

vehicle did not file any statement of objections. Whereas Respondent No.2 – insurance company filed the written

¶45

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13974 MFA No. 926 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 6756 of 2022

¶46

statement denying the averments made in the claim petition including age, avocation & income and pleaded that at the time of accident, driver of the lorry did not possess valid and effective Driving Licence and lorry was not having valid permit and hence insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. Therefore, sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶47

4.2 On the basis of the material evidence, both oral and documentary, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.19,88,190/- alongwith interest at 6% per annum and directed Respondent No.2 – insurance company to pay the compensation within 30 days.

¶48

4.3 Being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, claimants as well as the insurance company are before this Court challenging the same.

¶49

It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for the claimants that the Tribunal has committed gross error in not looking into the oral and documentary evidence in the proper perspective. It is the contention

¶50

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13974 MFA No. 926 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 6756 of 2022

¶51

of learned counsel that the deceased – D.S. Harisha was a graduate and engaged in flower decoration, making of Ganesha statues and doing business in snacks and thereby, he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month; Since the deceased was in an unorganized sector, no documentary proof of income is produced and he cannot be equated with the daily wager; The Tribunal committed

¶52

an error in taking the income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- per month on the basis of the notional income chart. Learned counsel further contends that deduction

¶53

of one-third made by the Tribunal towards personal and living expenses of the deceased is correct and does not call for interference as there are three dependents. On these grounds, learned counsel seeks enhancement of compensation.

¶54

Per contra, learned counsel – Smt. Geetha Raj

¶55

representing the insurance company contends that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is perverse, illegal and the same is not in accordance with the

¶56

8 -

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC:13974 MFA No. 926 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 6756 of 2022

¶58

judgments of the Apex Court. She further contends that no material is placed before the Court with regard to proof of income of the deceased and in the absence of the same, the Tribunal rightly taken the income of the deceased to be Rs.9,000/- as per the Legal Services Authority chart, which does not call for interference. She also contends that according to the Police records produced, the spot sketch depicts that there is contributory negligence on the part of rider of the motorcycle, who has gone on the extreme right side of the road, due to which the accident has occurred. Therefore some amount of contributory negligence has to be attributed as against rider of the motorcycle i.e., the deceased. Learned counsel further contends that the deceased was a bachelor as on the date of occurrence of the accident and the Tribunal has committed an error in deducting one-third towards personal and living expenses rather than 50%. On these grounds, learned counsel seeks to set aside the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

¶59

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:13974 MFA No. 926 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 6756 of 2022

¶60

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

¶61

The occurrence of accident, involvement of the vehicle, injuries sustained in the road traffic accident leading to death of the deceased – D.S. Harisha are established and proved by production of Ex.P1 to Ex.P19. No doubt, it is seen that as per the IMV report, there is no much damage to the vehicle involved in the accident. But, the fact remains that FIR is filed against rider of the offending lorry.

¶62

Coming to the aspect of age, avocation, income, appropriate multiplier and the deduction for awarding compensation, it is seen that the deceased was aged 24 years as on the date of occurrence of the accident and the appropriate multiplier would be '18' which is rightly taken by the Tribunal. What requires interference is the assessment of income of the deceased. The claimants have claimed Rs.20,000/- to be the monthly income of the deceased. But, they have not produced any document in

¶63

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:13974 MFA No. 926 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 6756 of 2022

¶64

proof of the income. It is the contention of learned counsel for the claimants that since the deceased was working in an unorganized sector, no documentary proof is produced with regard to income of the deceased. In the absence of proof of income, the Tribunal has taken the notional income of Rs.9,000/- per month as per Legal Services Authority Chart. It is true, in the absence of clear and convincing evidence on record as to the income, the notional income as per the Legal Services Authority chart is generally taken for computation of compensation

¶65

payable to the claimants. However, in the present case, the deceased was educated and qualified and as per the statement made by the claimants, the deceased was engaged in flower decoration and making of idols and statues. Therefore, the deceased cannot be equated with the daily wager or an agriculturist for assessment of income as per the Legal Services Authority Chart and this Court deems it appropriate to assess the income of the deceased to be Rs.11,000/- per month as against Rs.9,000/- taken by the Tribunal.

¶66

11 -

¶67

NC: 2025:KHC:13974 MFA No. 926 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 6756 of 2022

¶68

9.1 In view of the deceased being less than 40 years of age, the Tribunal rightly added 40% towards future prospects, which does not call for interference. The Tribunal deducted one-third towards personal and living expenses, which calls for interference. The deceased being a bachelor as on the date of occurrence of the accident, this Court deems it appropriate to deduct 50% towards personal and living expenses.

¶69

9.2 Therefore, loss of dependency would be

¶70

Rs.16,63,200/- {(Rs.11,000 plus 40% - 50%) x 12 x 18} as against Rs.18,14,400/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶71

The Tribunal awarded Rs.44,000/- towards consortium to each of the claimants; Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate; and Rs.16,500/- towards funeral expenses, which does not call for interference and the same are retained.

¶72

The Tribunal awarded Rs.8,790/towards medical expenses on the basis of the actual bills produced by the claimants, which does not call for interference.

¶73

12 - NC: 2025:KHC:13974 MFA No. 926 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 6756 of 2022

¶74

Coming to the aspect of contributory negligence, though there is no FIR or charge sheet laid against the deceased, who was rider of the motorcycle, on the basis of the spot sketch, IMV report and the contention of learned counsel for the insurance company that the deceased himself was negligent and could have avoided occurrence of the accident, this Court deems it appropriate to attribute 10% contributory negligence against the deceased.

¶75

In view of the above, the claimants would be entitled to compensation under the various heads as mentioned in the table below:

¶76

Sl. No.	Head of compensation	Amount of compensation awarded
1	Loss of dependency	Rs.16,63,200-00
2	Loss of consortium (Rs.44,000 x 3)	Rs. 1,32,000-00
3	Loss of estate	Rs. 16,500-00
4	Funeral expenses	Rs. 16,500-00
5	Medical expenses	Rs. 8,790-00
	Total	Rs. 18,36,990-00

¶77

13 -

¶78

NC: 2025:KHC:13974 MFA No. 926 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 6756 of 2022

¶79

Less: Contributory negligence of 10% attributed against the deceased
(10% of Rs.18,36,990/-)	Rs. 1,83,699-00
Compensation to which the	Rs.16,53,291-00
claimants are entitled for i.e.,
90% of Rs.18,36,990/-

¶80

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶81

O R D E R

¶82

i) The appeals are disposed off .

¶83

ii) The impugned Judgment & Award dated 24^th June 2022 passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.1574/2016, is modified.

¶84

iii) The claimants would be entitled to reduced compensation of Rs.16,53,291/- (Rupees sixteen lakhs fifty-three thousand two hundred and ninety-one only) as against Rs.19,88,190/- awarded by the Tribunal, alongwith interest at 6% per annum.

¶85

iv) The compensation amount shall be paid with interest at 6% per annum by the insurance company within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

¶86

14 -

¶87

NC: 2025:KHC:13974 MFA No. 926 of 2023 C/W MFA No. 6756 of 2022

¶88

v) The apportionment, deposit and release of the compensation amount shall be as per the terms of the Tribunal.

¶89

vi) The compensation amount shall be released as per the terms of the tribunal by electronic transfer to the claimants, upon furnishing the required bank details/upon proper verification.

¶90

vii) The amount in deposit before this Court shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal forthwith.

¶91

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶92

GSS

¶93

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52

Sri Somanna v. Sri Sanjeev Poojari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Somanna v. Sri Sanjeev Poojari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri K Raghu Vs Smt.Chaithra K

Smt. Chikkanna Vs Smt. Bhagyamma

Karthik Vedanayagam Vs Mrs.Akhila Karthik

Sri K Manohar Reddy Vs Sri Shaik Sabir

M/S United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Mr v Narsimhulu

Mr B L Muniraja Vs Sri Avalappa