Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 11440
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL, J
NINGAVVA @ NINGAMMA – Appellant
Versus
PARASURAMA – Respondent
MFA 101886/2016
SRI. ANJANEYA M, SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, SRI. S. C. BHUTI
Dependency in compensation claims is interpreted broadly, allowing legal representatives to claim regardless of formal income status.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 - Compensation claims - Claimants sought enhancement of compensation from Rs.5,15,000/- to Rs.7,98,600/-; Tribunal initially awarded lower amount based on loss of dependency and future prospects - Dependency defined broadly, with claimants deemed dependents despite lack of formal income - Contributory negligence not established against deceased. (Paras 3, 10, 13, 14)
(B) Legal representatives' rights - Legal representatives, including married and earning children, have the right to claim compensation irrespective of dependency - Tribunal must consider claims beyond conventional heads. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
Claimants are the children of the deceased who died in an accident on 7.4.2013; they argued for higher compensation based on loss of dependency and future prospects, while the Corporation contested the liability.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that claimants were entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.7,98,600/- due to established dependency and future loss considerations.
Issues: The main issues included the definition of dependency and the assessment of contributory negligence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that dependency should be interpreted broadly and that contributory negligence was not established, affirming the Tribunal's findings on liability.
Result: Appeals allowed in part; compensation modified to Rs.7,98,600/- with interest.
1. MFA.No.101886/2016 is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation. MFA.No.101890/2016 is filed by the Corporation challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal as well as the liability saddled on the appellant/Corporation.
2. Both the appeals are arising out of the judgment and award dated 14.01.2016, passed in MVC No.511/2013 on the file of MACT-II, Ballari (for short, ‘Tribunal’).
3. Sri.S.C.Bhuthi, learned counsel for the appellant/Corporation submits that the Tribunal has committed grave error in awarding compensation to the claimants and computing of loss of dependency. Admittedly, both the claimants are not depending on the income of the deceased. He submits that claimant No.1 is Devadasi and she deposed before the Tribunal that she used to take care of the deceased. It is further submitted that the claimant No.2 is the son of the deceased and after the marriage, he is residing with his wife in a different village. Hence, award of compensation under the head of loss of dependency is required to be interfered with. He further submits that the accident in question has taken place in the middle of the road. Hence, some contributory negligency is required to be saddled on the deceased.
4. Per contra, Sri.Anjaneya M., learned counsel for the claimants submits that both the claimants are depending on the income of the deceased. He submits that the police have filed a charge sheet against the driver of the offending bus. Hence, question of contributory negligence by the deceased would not arise. He submits that the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- p.m. which is required to be re- assessed. He further submits that the Tribunal has failed to award compensation under the head of loss of future prospects of the deceased and compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the other heads are also on the lower side. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal of the claimants.
5. I have heard the arguments of Sri.Anjaneya M, learned counsel appearing for the claimants and Sri.S.C. Bhuthi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2/ Corporation and perused the material available on record.
6. It is not in dispute that on 7.4.2013, Smt.Huligemma met with an accident and succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said accident.
7. Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/Corporation that the claimant No.1 is not the dependent of the deceased is concerned, PW.1 has clearly deposed that she work in a scrap shop and used to take care of medical and other expenses of the deceased. The stray sentence in the evidence of PW.1 that she used to work in a scrap shop cannot be the basis to hold that the claimant No.1 is not the dependant of the deceased. The word ‘dependency’ though not defined in the Motor Vehicle Act, it should be understood in a broader sense, keeping in mind the object of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1989. Admittedly, the claimant No.1 is a Devadasi, which clearly indicates that she does not have any regular or fixed income. Moreover, the claimant No.1 was unmarried and was residing along with the deceased under one roof. Hence, the claimant No.1 is a dependent of the deceased.
8. Insofar as claimant No.2 is concerned, though PW.2 has deposed that the claimant No.2 was residing along with his wife, that itself would not be a ground to come to the conclusion that the claimant No.2 was not depending on the income of the deceased.
9. Admittedly, the Insurance Company has not made any attempt to adduce the evidence of independent witness nor it has produced any documents with regard to the dependency of claimants, except making written statement before the Tribunal. Hence, in the absence of any contrary evidence on record this court holds that the claimant No.2 is dependant of the deceased. It would be useful to refer decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd., V/s. Birender and others , reported in 2020 SCC 759
