Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 985 (KAR)

Kumari Vaishnavi v. Mallikarjun Malipatil

2017-07-03

B.A.PATIL

body2017
JUDGMENT : B.A. Patil, J. This appeal is filed seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Principal Civil Judge and CJM and MACT, Bidar, in MVC No. 150/2012 by judgment and award dated 29.06.2013. 2. Though the matter is listed today for orders, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final hearing. 3. Brief facts leading filing of the claim petition before the tribunal are that, on 11.10. 2011, the deceased along with his friends went to Dhaba in a car bearing Reg. No. KA-32, M-9842 to have a lunch and at about 12.15 p.m. when the said car was proceeding on Jevargi Ring Road near Maharaja layout at Gulbarga, the driver of the said car driven it in a rash and negligent manner with a high speed and dashed against a motorcycle, later on dashed against electric pole, as a result of the said accident the deceased and others sustained grievous injuries; immediately they were shifted to Government Hospital Gulbarga and the deceased succumbed to the said injuries during the course of treatment. As such, the claim petition has been filed before the tribunal claiming compensation. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is on the lower side. The tribunal has not taken into consideration the principles laid down in the case of Kishan Gopal and another v. Lala and others reported in (2014) 1 Supreme Court Cases 244 : (AIR 2014 SC (Supp) 173) while awarding the compensation, when the deceased is a minor. He would also contend that the Tribunal without there being any proper assessment has come to a wrong conclusion and has awarded the compensation. As such, he prays for allowing the appeal by enhancing the compensation awarded by the tribunal. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 insurance company supports the impugned judgment and award and therefore, he seeks for dismissal of the appeal. 6. The occurrence of the incident in question and even the fact that vehicle involved in the accident has been insured with respondent No. 2 are not in dispute. 7. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 insurance company supports the impugned judgment and award and therefore, he seeks for dismissal of the appeal. 6. The occurrence of the incident in question and even the fact that vehicle involved in the accident has been insured with respondent No. 2 are not in dispute. 7. By going through the contents of the judgment and award, the Tribunal after taking into consideration the principles laid down in a decision reported in 2002 ACJ-2002 : (2012 AIR SCW 3901) in the case of Amreeth Bhanu Shali and others v. National Insurance Company, has awarded a compensation of Rs.3,65,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. to the claimants. But, while considering the quantum of compensation, it has not been properly come to a right conclusion. The said award even though under the normal circumstances appears to be just and proper, but keeping in view the decision reported in (2014) 1 Supreme Court Cases 244 (AIR 2014 SC (Supp) 173) in the case of Kishan Gopal and another v. Lala and others, the compensation required to be enhanced. In the said case, in case of death of children between the age group of 10 to 15 years, the notional income of Rs.30,000/- per annum was taken into consideration. In view of the said decision, it would be just and reasonable to take the notional income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/- per annum and as the age of the mother of the deceased has to be taken into consideration, she was aged 35 years at the time of accident and in that light multiplier of 16 can be applied. In that light, appellant is entitled to Rs.4,80,000/- (30,000 x 16 = 4,80,000/-) towards loss of dependency and Rs.50,000/- under conventional heads. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.5,30,000/-. Since already the tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs.3,65,000/-, after deducting the same, the appellant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.1,65,000/- towards loss of dependency and under conventional heads with interest at 6% p.a. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the judgment and award of the tribunal are modified. The appellant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.1,65,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the judgment and award of the tribunal are modified. The appellant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.1,65,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. 9. Respondent No. 2 insurance company to deposit the enhanced compensation within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. 10. The disbursement, release and deposit of the enhanced amount shall be made in terms of the award of the tribunal. 11. While considering the application for delay, this Court by order dated 02.03.2017 has condonded the delay of 1091 days in preferring the appeal with the condition that the appellant is not entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation for the delayed period. As such, the insurance company has to take note of the same and while depositing the compensation amount, interest for 1091 days has to be deducted as ordered. 12. Sri. Sudarshan M., learned counsel is permitted to file vakalath in the Registry within one week.