Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 711 (KAR)

C. Mala And Others v. G. k. Girisha And Others

2020-03-12

SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

body2020
JUDGMENT Suraj Govindaraj, J. - The appellants are before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation that awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Bengaluru (SCCH No. 6) (Tribunal for short) in MVC No. 4275/2011 dated 04.12.2012. 2. On 30.03.2011, at about 10:45 a.m., when the deceased Thyagaraju was proceeding on a motorcycle from Ettakodi towards Chikkathirupathi near Aralikatte at Ettakodi Village, a Maruti Van came in a high speed in a rash and negligent manner from his opposite direction, hit his motorcycle and then hit the pedestrian Ramalingappa, who was walking on the left side of the footpath along with his son Ananda. Due to the impact of the said accident, Ramalingappa suffered severe head injury and his son Ananda sustained simple injuries. Thyagaraju suffered grievous injuries. They were shifted to Vydehi Hospital at Whitefield for treatment, where, Thyagaraju succumbed to the injuries at 4:45 p.m., on the same day. Ramalingappa was treated as an inpatient in Vydehi Hospital from 30.03.2011 to 10.04.2011, thereafter to Raghava Children and General Hospital at Attibele from 11.04.2011 to 16.04.2011 and thereafter discharged. 3. MVC No. 4275/2011, from which, the above appeal arises is in respect of the death of Thyagaraju. The appellants are his wife, two minor children and mother i.e., to say he is survived by four dependants. The appellants are before this Court contending that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is improper and incorrect, the same is required to be enhanced. The applicable guidelines of the Apex Court in various matters have not been followed and the income of the deceased has not been taken into consideration in a proper manner. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that, calculation of the compensation is just and proper, all the factors are taken into consideration and there is no need for any enhancement of compensation. 5. The accident having occurred in the year 2011. The Tribunal considering the earning of the deceased at Rs. 4,500/- per month by applying a multiplier of 16, has awarded a compensation of Rs. 8,42,400/- on the head of Loss of Dependency. The Tribunal ought to have considered the notional income for the purpose of Loss of amenities as being Rs. 6,500/- for that year. The Tribunal ought to have considered future prospects of the deceased and awarded compensation, which has not been done. Hence, the same needs to be revised. 6. 8,42,400/- on the head of Loss of Dependency. The Tribunal ought to have considered the notional income for the purpose of Loss of amenities as being Rs. 6,500/- for that year. The Tribunal ought to have considered future prospects of the deceased and awarded compensation, which has not been done. Hence, the same needs to be revised. 6. The deceased is deemed to have been earning a sum of Rs. 6,500/- per month. Future prospects being 40%, the same would come to Rs. 2,600/- and in all Rs. 9,100/- per month. The deceased being survived by four dependants, an amount equivalent to 1/4th would have to be deducted for his personal expenses, which is Rs. 2,275/-, which leaves a balance of Rs. 6,825/- as income per month, annualized to Rs. 81,900/- and applying the multiplier of 16, the amount of compensation that is required to be awarded on this account would be Rs. 13,10,400/-. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal being Rs. 8,42,400/-, the said compensation is enhanced by a sum of Rs. 4,68,000/-. 7. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 5,000/- towards transportation. In terms of the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121 , a sum of Rs. 15,000/- each is to be awarded towards 'funeral expenses and loss of estate'. Hence, the same is enhanced to Rs. 30,000/-. 8. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of consortium. The deceased being survived by four dependants, I am of the considered opinion that, each of them would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 20,000/- on account of loss of consortium. Hence, an amount of Rs. 80,000/- is required to be awarded on this head of account. SI. No. Heads of account Compensation awarded by the Tribunal in Rs. Compensation awarded by this Court in Rs. Enhanced compensation in Rs. 1 Loss of dependency 8,42,400 13,10,400 4,68,000 2 Funeral expenses and transportation 10,000 15,000 5,000 3 Loss of Estate - 15,000 15,000 4 Loss of consortium 10,000 80,000 70,000 Total 8,62,400 14,20,400 5,58,000 9. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The Appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced by a sum of Rs. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The Appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced by a sum of Rs. 5,58,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. (iii) The rest of the terms and conditions of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal remained unaltered.