DURGAMMA MANJAPPA NAIK v. MOHAMMED PAIYAZ

(BY SRI C.SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R3; NOTICE TO R1 & R2 DISPENSED WITH V/C/O DTD. 09.02.2026) …RESPONDENTS THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.02.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.509/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, BHATKAL, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU)

1. The present appeal seeks to challenge the judgment and award dated 14.02.2022 in M.V.C.No.509/2019 passed by the Additional MACT and Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Bhatkal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Award’). By the Impugned Award, learned Tribunal has awarded compensation to the appellants/claimants in a sum of 2 NC: 2026:KHC:32263-DB MFA No.5693 of 2022 HC-KAR Rs.4,70,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till deposit of the award amount in the Tribunal.

2. The Appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants. Notice to respondent Nos.1 and 2/driver and owner respectively was dispensed with by order dated 09.02.2026 passed by this Court. The appeal contested appellants/claimants and learned Counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company.

3. The Appeal though listed for admission, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, is taken up for final hearing and disposal today itself.

4. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 30.04.2019 at about 11.45 p.m., when the deceased Manjappa Naik was standing by the side of National Highway-66 near Danish Hotel, Puravarga, Bhatkal Taluk, at that time, Tavera Car bearing Registration No.KA-01-AD-7148 came from Kundapura side with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased. As a result, the deceased sustained multiple injuries 3 NC: 2026:KHC:32263-DB MFA No.5693 of 2022 HC-KAR including grievous injuries and succumbed to his injuries at the spot itself.

4.1. A claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘M.V.Act’ for short) was filed by the wife, three daughters and son of the deceased contending that at the time of the accident, the deceased was working as a mason and earning about Rs.18,000/- per month.

4.2. The service was effected on the driver, owner of Tavera Car (R1 & R2) and the Insurance Company (R3). Respondent Nos.1 and 2 though appeared through their learned Counsel, they did not file any statement of objections. The claim petition was contested only by respondent No.3/Insurance Company before the learned Tribunal by filing a statement of objection.

4.3. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal: “(i) Whether that on the petitioners prove 30-04-2019 at about 11-45 p.m., on NH-66, near Danish Hotel, Purvarga, Bhatkal taluk when the deceased Manjappa Naik was standing by the road side the driver of the Tavera Car bearing Reg.No.KA-01/AD-7148 belonging to the respondent No.1 came from Kundapura side with high speed and in a rash or negligent manner and dashed against the deceased Manjappa Naik and thereby, the deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident? 4 NC: 2026:KHC:32263-DB MFA No.5693 of 2022 HC-KAR (ii) Whether petitioners prove that they are the dependents of the deceased? (iii) Whether the petitioners are entitled compensation? If so, what is the quantum and from whom? (iv) What Order or Award?”

4.4. The appellants/claimants examined claimant No.3, the son of the deceased as PW.1 and exhibited documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P18. The respondent No.3/Insurance Company, did not examine any witness but exhibited the Insurance policy as Ex.D1.

4.5. Based on the pleadings, the evidence, documents Ex.P1 [FIR], Ex.P3 [Mahazar], Ex.P4 [Rough Sketch], Ex.P7 [Postmortem Report], Ex.P8 [Charge Sheet] and other records available on record before the learned Tribunal, the learned Tribunal found that the rash and negligent driving to be proved.

4.6. In addition, it was held that the deceased is stated to be 70 years. The learned Tribunal took the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- and also found that since there were five dependants of the deceased, the deduction would be 1/3rd and applying ‘5’ multiplier calculated the dependency as: [10,000/-X 1/3 X 5 X 12] = Rs.4,00,020/- 5 NC: 2026:KHC:32263-DB MFA No.5693 of 2022 HC-KAR

4.7. In addition, learned Tribunal has awarded compensation towards loss of estate and loss of consortium. But no amounts were awarded for medical expenses. Learned Tribunal after examining the evidence on record has awarded the compensation under the following heads: Sl. No. 1 2 3 4 5 Particulars Amount (Rs.) Loss of dependency [6667 x 12 x 5] Loss of Estate Loss of Consortium Funeral expenses Medical expenditure TOTAL Rounded off 4,00,020/- 15,000/- 40,000/- 15,000/- - 4,70,020/- 4,70,000/-

4.8 The learned Tribunal thus awarded a sum of Rs.4,70,000/- along with interest at 6% per annum.

5. Learned Counsel for the appellants/claimants has raised two contentions in this appeal. He submits that the amounts as awarded for notional income were wrongly calculated at Rs.10,000/-. Since the accident was in the year 2019, the notional income should have been taken at Rs.14,000/- as per the chart of Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. In addition, amounts awarded for consortium are not 6 NC: 2026:KHC:32263-DB MFA No.5693 of 2022 HC-KAR accordance with the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi1,

6. Learned Counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company submits that the award is in accordance with law.

7. The question that arises for consideration before this Court is whether the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is in accordance with the settled legal provisions

8. As stated above, the notional income for the year 2019 would be at the rate of Rs.14,000/- per month and the deceased was 70 years old. In addition, in terms of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another2, since the deceased has five dependants, 1/4th has to be deducted towards personal expenses and the applicable multiplier for the age of 70 years is ‘5’. Hence, compensation under the loss of dependency is recomputed as follows: Heads Amounts Loss of dependency Rs.14,000 x 1/4 = 10,500/- Rs.10,500x12x5=Rs.6,30,000/- ORDER (ii) The judgment and award dated 14.02.2022 in M.V.C.No.509/2019 passed by the Additional MACT and Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Bhatkal is modified, enhancing the compensation by Rs.4,13,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum as awarded by the learned Tribunal from the date of petition till realization. (iii) The remaining portion of the impugned award of the Tribunal remains undisturbed. (iv) Respondent No.3/Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced compensation with interest as awarded by the Tribunal within eight weeks from today. (v) On such deposit of compensation, the same shall be released in favour of appellants/claimants, on filing of an appropriate application for withdrawal of the 9 NC: 2026:KHC:32263-DB MFA No.5693 of 2022 HC-KAR enhanced amount in the proportion as was set out in the Impugned Award. (vi) The Registry is directed to draw the modified Award accordingly. (vii) The Registry is directed transmit a copy of this judgment and the records to the concerned Tribunal. (viii) Pending application(s), if any, stand closed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE Sd/- (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE KSR / KS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1 10