Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 184 (KAR)

Meghana M P v. Quick Mix Concrete

2023-02-01

ANIL B.KATTI, K.S.MUDAGAL

body2023
JUDGMENT/ORDER K.S.MUDAGAL, J. - Heard. 2. "Whether the compensation awarded to appellants under the impugned award is just?" is the question involved in this case. 3. The appellants were claimants No.1 to 4 in MVC No.3084/2017 on the file of MACT & XIII Additional Small Cause Judge, Bengaluru. 4. For the purpose of convenience, parties are referred according to their ranks before the Tribunal. 5. Claimant No.1 is wife, claimant No.2 is minor son and claimant Nos.3 and 4 are parents of deceased Venkateshappa V.N., @ Venkatesh. 6. On 24/10/2016, at 8.00 p.m., when Venkateshappa was proceeding on his motorbike bearing Regn. No.KA 40/Y 4114, near Kendanahalli-Chinnasandra Cross, within the limits of Chinnasandra village, lorry bearing Regn. No.KA 05/AF 9801, hit the motorbike of Venkateshappa. Consequently, he fell down from the motorbike, by that time, a car bearing Regn. No.KA 40/A 3259 coming from opposite direction ran over him. Due to injuries suffered by him, he died on the next day while he was being treated in the hospital. At the relevant time, respondent Nos.1 and 3 were registered owners of lorry and car in question respectively and respondent Nos.2 and 4 were Insurers of the said lorry and car. 7. The claimants filed MVC No.3084/2017 against the respondents seeking compensation of Rs.63, 00, 000.00 on the ground that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of lorry and car by their drivers. They further contended that they were all dependant on the income of Venkateshappa and now, they have become destitutes. Respondent Nos.2 and 4 alone contested the claim petition denying rashness and negligence on the part of drivers of lorry and car, age, occupation and income of deceased and their liability to pay compensation. 8. The Tribunal, on recording evidence of parties and hearing them, by the impugned award held that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the drivers of lorry and car. The Tribunal apportioned negligence on the drivers of lorry and car in the ratio of 70:30 percent respectively. The Tribunal assessed the income of deceased at Rs.8, 000.00 per month, deducted 1/4th from the same for his personal expenses, applied 17 multiplier and granted compensation of Rs.12, 24, 000.00 on the head loss of dependency. The Tribunal, in all, granted compensation of Rs.12, 94, 000.00 under different heads, as follows; 9. The Tribunal assessed the income of deceased at Rs.8, 000.00 per month, deducted 1/4th from the same for his personal expenses, applied 17 multiplier and granted compensation of Rs.12, 24, 000.00 on the head loss of dependency. The Tribunal, in all, granted compensation of Rs.12, 94, 000.00 under different heads, as follows; 9. Learned counsel for claimants re-iterating grounds of appeal submits that compensation awarded on all the heads is on the lower side and the precedents relating to grant of compensation on the head of loss of consortium and loss of estate are not followed. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 4 justifies the impugned award. 10. Respondents have not challenged the findings of Tribunal regarding rashness and negligence on the part of drivers of lorry and car as well as their share of negligence. Therefore, the only question is about adequacy of compensation awarded. 11. Though the claimants contended that deceased was earning Rs.22, 000.00 per month, there was no proof for such income. Therefore, Tribunal was justified in notionally considering his income. However, the accident took place in the year 2016, deceased was aged 28 years and hale and healthy. Considering the said facts and prevailing wage rates during the said period, the Tribunal should have considered his income at Rs.9, 500.00 per month. 12. As per judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017)16SCC 680. Tribunal should have super added 40% to the said income, which would come to Rs.9, 500.00 + Rs.3, 800.00 = Rs.13, 300.00. The applicable multiplier is 17. Therefore, his total income comes to Rs.13, 300.00x12x17=Rs.27, 13, 200.00. Since, deceased had four dependants, 1/4th of his income has to be deducted for his personal expenses. Therefore, compensation on the head of loss of dependency comes to (27, 13, 200x3/4)= Rs.20, 34, 900.00. 13. As per judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance Company Limited, (2018)18 SCC 130 . each of the claimants is entitled to Rs.40, 000.00 with escalation of 10%. The compensation payable for funeral expenses and loss of estate needs 10% escalation. Therefore, the just compensation payable to claimants is as follows: 14. The award of Tribunal requires to be modified accordingly. Hence, the following: Order i) The appeal is partly allowed. each of the claimants is entitled to Rs.40, 000.00 with escalation of 10%. The compensation payable for funeral expenses and loss of estate needs 10% escalation. Therefore, the just compensation payable to claimants is as follows: 14. The award of Tribunal requires to be modified accordingly. Hence, the following: Order i) The appeal is partly allowed. ii) The claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.22, 43, 900.00 with interest thereon at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. iii) The award of Tribunal with regard to apportionment of negligence between drivers of lorry and car is maintained. iv) Apportionment of compensation between the claimants and order for release and investment is maintained. v) Respondent Nos.2 and 4 shall deposit the aforesaid amount before the Tribunal after adjusting the amount already deposited within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.