Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 2380
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, J
GOPALA S/O PUTTASWAMY GOWDA – Appellant
Versus
NAGAVENI K W/O LATE SRINIVAS K – Respondent
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2308 OF 2017 | MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5975 OF 2016 | MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5976 OF 2016 (MV-D)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. SREENIVASAN M.Y., SRI. A.N.KRISHNASWAMY
For the Respondents: SRI. M.Y.SREENIVASAN, SRI MAYANNAGOWDA N.R.
Court emphasized loss to estate over loss of dependency in compensation claims when no clear evidence of dependency exists.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 166 and 168 - Compensation under the head loss of dependency and loss to estate for deceased in motor accident - Appellant-claimant is husband entitled to compensation based on notional income and loss of consortium, modifying previous compensation distribution. (Paras 7, 8, 16)
(B) Apportionment - Modification of the Tribunal’s decision on compensation apportionment between the claimant-husband and the parents of the deceased due to non-dependence on income from deceased.
(C) Interest - Agreement to reduce interest rate on compensation awarded from 9% to 6%. (Paras 12, 13)
Facts of the case:
The claimant's wife succumbed to injuries in an accident caused by a negligent driver; compensation challenged for enhancement, especially regarding dependency claims and apportionment with her parents.
Findings of Court:
Compensation is awarded under heads of loss to estate and loss of consortium totaling Rs.14,42,200/- with specified interest. The Court modifies the previous judgment detailing appropriate apportionment of awards.
Issues: Whether the husband is a dependent on his deceased wife's income and the proper distribution of compensation among beneficiaries.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found no evidence of the husband being dependent; thus, compensation for loss of estate was appropriate rather than loss of dependency, affirming the necessity of proper apportionment of claims.
Result: Appeals allowed-in-part.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the accident and victims. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. discussion on dependency and loss to estate. (Para 6 , 8 , 14) |
| 3. compensation assessment methodology and findings. (Para 7 , 10 , 12) |
| 4. court's final disposition on appeals. (Para 16) |
JUDGMENT
MFA.No.2308/2017 is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 29.04.2016 passed in MVC.No.950/2014 by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Nagamangala, questioning the apportionment made and also for seeking enhancement of compensation.
MFA.No.5975/2016 is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 29.04.2016 passed in MVC.No.950/2014 by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Nagamangala, for reducing the quantum of compensation.
MFA.No.5976/2016 is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 29.04.2016 passed in MVC.No.1406/2014 by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Nagamangala, for reducing the quantum of compensation.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, on 16.05.2014 at about 4.30 am., when Kempamma was taking her daughter Shruti to the hospital for delivery in autorickshaw bearing No.KA-11-5778 near Devihalli village of Nagamangala Taluk, the driver of the car bearing No.KA-19-MD-1321 drove it on NH.75 in a rash and negligent manner and hit to the above said autorickshaw from back side. Due to which, Shruti sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries.
3. Learned counsel for the claimant-husband submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, prays for enhancement of the same. Further submitted that respondent Nos.3 and 4 are the father-in-law and mother- in-law of the claimant, hence, they are not entitled for compensation under the head loss of dependency, since their daughter after marriage goes to her husband’s house. Therefore, the parents of the daughter (in case of death) are not dependent. Therefore, awarding 50% of determined compensation amount to the parents of deceased who are respondent Nos.3 and 4 is not correct. But parents of the deceased are entitled for compensation under the head loss of consortium only, but not under the head loss of dependency. Therefore, prays for modification of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in this regard.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the claimant-husband cannot be construed as strictly depending upon the income of his wife. Therefore, he is not dependant. Therefore, the compensation granted under the head loss of dependency is not permissible and entitled for compensation under the head loss of estate. Therefore, prays for modification of the award.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 (impleaded) submitted that the apportionment made by the Tribunal between the claimant-husband and respondent Nos.3 and 4 (father-in- law and mother-in-law) is correct, which needs no interference. Therefore, prays to confirm the same.
6. In the present case, the deceased is the wife of the appellant-husband and daughter of respondent Nos.3 and 4. It is stated that the deceased was working as a beautician and tailor and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. Therefore, the appellant-claimant is depending upon her income. It is admitted in the cross-examination by the claimant that after the death of his wife, he re-married. Therefore, the question as to whether the appellant-husband is entitled for compensation under the head loss of dependency or not. Even though, it is contended that his wife was working as a beautician and tailor, but there is no proof. Therefore, in respect of avocation and income of the deceased, there is no proof. In such an event, notional income is to be taken into consideration. As per Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, even though, there is no word used that the compensation to be granted under the head loss of dependency and on other heads, but it is stated that the compensation is to be awarded to the leg
