Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 35670
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.201214/2018(MV)
BETWEEN:
1.
Smt. Shashikala W/o Mallikarjun
@ Mallesh Kantli,
Age: 46 years, Occ: Household,
R/o Kallur Road, Tq. Chincholi,
Dist. Kalaburagi.
Now R/o. Totappa Chawl, Station Area,
Kalaburagi.
2.
Mallikarjun @ Mallesh
S/o Basavantappa Kantli,
Age: 49 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Kallur Road, Tq. Chincholi,
Dist. Kalaburagi.
... Appellants
(BY SRI HARSHAVARDHAN R. MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)
MFA No.201214/2018
2
AND:
1.
Chittiboyina Venkat Subbaiah
S/o C. Subbanna,
Age: Major, Occ: Business & Owner of Lorry,
R/o No.10/9, J. Kothapalli Chinnakampalli,
C.K. Dinne Kadappa,
YSR Dist.
A.P.-516001.
2.
Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
IInd Floor Asian Plaza S.V.Patel Chowk,
Kalaburagi-585102.
Through its Branch Manager.
… Respondents
(BY SRI C.S. KALBURGI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1-SERVED)
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under
Section 173(1) of MV Act, praying to allow this appeal
and
enhance the compensation to Rs.20,02,000/-
(excluding the amount awarded by the Tribunal) along
with interest by modifying the judgment and award of
the II addl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT-Kalaburagi,
dated 06.03.2018 in MVC No.867 of 2014.
This appeal coming on for hearing, through physical
hearing/video conference, this day T.G. Shivashankare
Gowda, J., delivered the following:
In this appeal the appellants have challenged the
judgment dated 06.03.2018 passed in MVC No.867/2014
3
on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and
Additional MACT, Kalaburagi (Hereinafter referred to as
'Tribunal' for short).
The parties will be referred with respect to
their status before the Tribunal for the sake of
convenience.
3.
Briefly stated, the facts are that, petitioners
are the parents of Vinod @ Vinod Kumar, the deceased.
The deceased while riding the motor cycle bearing
registration number KA-32/W-7359 suffered severe
injuries in a road accident that took place on 23-01-2014
at
Tandur-Chincholi
Road
hit
by
Lorry
bearing
registration No.AP-04/TU-1881. He succumbed to
injuries on the way to hospital. Petitioners claimed
compensation of Rs.27,30,000/-. They pleaded that
deceased was aged 23 years, an MBA student and also
conducing tutorial and earning Rs.18,000/- to 20,000/-
4
per month. The claim was opposed by the Insurance
Company. The Tribunal awarded Rs.7,28,000/- with 6%
interest.
4.
The petitioners have pleaded inadequacy in
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, avocation of
the deceased was not taken into consideration, income
taken on lower side, future prospectors was not added,
less amount have been awarded under conventional
heads.
5.
According
to
the
learned
counsel
for
petitioners, the deceased was MBA student and was
conducting tutorials. He could have earned Rs.20,000/-
per month if he were to be alive. He had bright
prospectus.
Future
prospectus
is
not
taken.
Compensation on conventional heads is on lower side
and he sought for re-assessment and enhancement.
Learned counsel has placed reliance of the judgment of
5
the Hon’ble Apex Court in “S. VASANTHI & ANR.
VERSUS M/S ADHIPARASAKTHI ENGG. COLLEGE
AND ANOTHER” in Civil Appeal No.7180/2022 arising
out of SLP(C) No.10206/2020.
6.
Per contra, learned counsel for Insurance
Company contended that the consideration of future
prospects and also the conventional heads has been
settled, the deceased was a student has no earning
capacity, notional income is correctly assessed by the
Tribunal and further submitted that in the above
judgment the Hon’ble Apex Court dealt with a person
holding B.E., MBA degree, but, in the instant case
deceased was a student. Hence, it is not applicable to
the facts this case and he supported the impugned
judgment.
6
7.
We have given our anxious consideration to
the arguments addressed on behalf of the parties and
perused the records.
8.
There is no dispute as to the accident, cause
of the accident, death of the deceased in the accident,
the petitioners are the parents of the deceased and the
deceased was bachelor aged 23 and the entitlement of
the petitioners to claim compensation as dependents of
the deceased.
9.
Exs.P9 to P15 are the Marks Cards and
Certificate issued by the College, which show that the
deceased was a B.Sc., graduate and pursuing 3rd
Semester in MBA, was also conducting part time tutorial
and earning while learning. It is argued by the learned
counsel for the petitioners that the Tribunal ought to
have considered all these aspects to assess the income
of the deceased. The Tribunal considered the income of
7
the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month. Having regard to
the evidence that the deceased was MBA student, the
claim of the petitioners cannot be ignored as to his
earning capacity and also the present earning by him by
conducting the tutorials’. In S. VASANTHI's case (supra)
the Tribunal has taken income at Rs.7,000/- per month,
whereas, the High Court took Rs.10,000/- and the
Hon’ble Apex Court took Rs.30,000/- as the monthly
income of the deceased. In that case the deceased was
a qualifying engineering graduate and pursuing the MBA.
Whereas, in this case the deceased was B.SC., graduate
pursuing the MBA. No one can dispute that the scope
and prospectus of a MBA post graduate in IT field is
different
from
ordinary
graduate
possessing
MBA
qualification, hence both cannot be equat
