Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 39372
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3700 OF 2022 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. ANNAPURNAMMA W/O LATE G. KUMAR, HINDU NOW AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/OF BYRAPPANA PALYA, NARASIPURA POST, SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK.
K. SURESH S/O LATE G. KUMAR, DEAD BY HIS LRS, 2. SMT. RADHA M W/O LATE K. SURESH, HINDU NOW AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, Digitally signed by VEDAVATHI A K R/AT NO 39, SIDDANAHOSAHALLI, Location: High Court of LAKSHMIPURA MAIN ROAD, Karnataka MADANAYAKANAHALLI AT POST, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK - 562 162.
3. SMT. K. SUMA W/O SHANKAR, HINDU NOW AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT NO.13, 24TH CROSS BAGALAGUNTE, BANGALORE - 73.
…APPELLANTS (BY SRI. T. C. SATHISH KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. PANCHATCHARAM S/O DURAI, HINDU MAJOR, R/AT NO.32, WARD 32, MARIYAMMAN KOIL, 7TH CROSS STREET, TIRUVANNAMALAI AT DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU STATE.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.95, I FLOOR, BIG STREET, THIRUVANNAMALAI - 636 601.
TAMIL NADU STATE.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. KRISHNA KISHORE, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1 SERVED, BUT UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.10.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.4628/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL SCJ AND ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, SCCH-5 PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short hereinafter referred to as MV Act) challenging the judgment and award dated 29.10.2021 passed in MVC No.4628/2011 passed by the VIII Additional SCJ and ACMM, Member, MACT, Bengaluru, (for short hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') for seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.2- Insurance Company. Respondent No.1 is served and unrepresented.
3. The appellants were petitioners and the respondents were respondents before the Trial Court. The status of the parties before the Tribunal is retained for the sake of convenience.
4. The case of the petitioners/claimants is that the petitioner filed petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act (for short ‘M.V. Act’) for claiming compensation of the deceased G.Kumar, who died in the road traffic accident dated 23.06.2011 at 5.30 p.m., when he was proceeding on Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-52-H-4629 near Hirehalli railway station a lorry bearing No.TN-28-A-6288 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Motor cycle of the deceased, due to which he died on the spot. The petitioner No.1 is the wife, petitioner No.2 is son and petitioner No.3 is the daughter, who are dependents on the income of the deceased. The deceased was Physical Education Teacher in Sree Siddaganga Rural High School, Hirehalli Tumkur and was drawing Rs.20,595/- per month and hence prayed for claiming compensation on various grounds.
5. On receipt of the summons, the respondents appeared and the respondent No.2 filed the written statement of objection by denying the rash and negligent driving, also denied age, occupation and income of the deceased and also contended that the driver of the lorry do not have any driving license, it is violation of insurance conditions. Hence, prayed for dismissing the petition. 6. On the basis of pleadings, the tribunal framed the following issues for consideration:
1. Whether the Petitioners prove that, the deceased G.Kumar was died in a road traffic accident that occurred on 23.06.2011 at about 5.30 p.m. on Tumkur-Bengaluru, NH-4 Road U- Turn, near, Hirehalli Railway Station, Tumkur Taluk, was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Lorry bearing Reg.No. TN-28-
A-6288 petition as alleged in the petition?
2. Whether Petitioners prove that they are the legal representatives of deceased?
3. Whether the Petitioners are entitled for any compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
4. What order or award??
7. To prove the case, the petitioner No.1 was examined as P.W.1. and also examined other two witnesses, as PW2 and PW3. They got marked documents from Exs.P1 to P16. Respondent not lead any evidence. Accordingly, granted compensation of Rs.19,24,508/-, which is as under;
| Sl.No. | Head of Compensation | Amount in Rs. |
| 1. | Loss of dependency (after deducting 1/2 of the income towards persons living expenses) | 16,06,488-00 |
| 2. | Loss of Consortium | 40,000-00 + 4,000-00 |
| 3. | Loss of Estate | 15,000-00 +1,500-00 |
| 4. | Funeral expenses and transportation of dead body | 15,000-00 +1,500-00 |
| 5. | Future prospects | 2,41,020-00 |
| Total | 19,24,508-00 |
8. Being aggrieved with the quantum of compensation the claimants are before this court.
9. Learned Counsel for the appellant contented that the tribunal committed error in deducting 50% of the income towards the personal expenditure, even though deceased was married person and having two children. Also, contented the percentage of future prospectus taken as 15%, which is not correct, 30% should have been considered towards future prospectus, that is not done. Therefore, prayed for enhancing the same and also contended consortium also was not awarded. Hence, prayed for enhancing the compensation contenting that even married daughter also is dependent on the father.
10. Per contra, learned for respondent has
