CHIKKANNA B.L. v. SHARADAVANI Court of Karnataka

(BY SRI. RANGE GOWDA N.R., ADVOCATE) …APPELLANTS AND:

#1. SRI. SRIRAM A.S. S/O. A.S. SOMASHEKAHARAIAH, AGED MAJOR, R/AT NO.516, MALAVIKA CONVENT ROAD, HEMAVATHI NAGAR, HASSAN - 573 201 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:41007 MFA No. 8527 of 2022 HC-KAR

#2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., SHUBHARAM COMPLEX, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001 (BY SRI. H.C. BESTUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 VIDE ORDER DATED 12.04.2023, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) …RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.07.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO. 2233/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL SCJ AND ACMM, MEMBER, MACT-3, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal has been filed by the claimants' being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 19.07.2022 passed by the VII Additional SCJ and ACMM, Member, MACT-3, Bengaluru (for short 'the tribunal') in MVC No.2233/2020, seeking enhancement of compensation. Though this appeal is slated for admission, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for both the sides, it is taken up for final disposal. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:41007 MFA No. 8527 of 2022 HC-KAR

#2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

#3. Brief facts of the case are that, on 15.06.2020, the husband of claimant No.1 by name Ninganna @ Linganna, met with an accident due to rash and negligent riding of a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-13-EK-4854 near Mahadevapura, Kunigal-Bengaluru Highway. Due to the impact, he sustained grievous injuries and while undergoing treatment, he succumbed to the injuries. The deceased was aged about 67 years. He was agriculturist and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. With these reasons, claimants filed the claim petition for compensation.

#4. Respondent No.1 was the owner and respondent No.2 was the insurer of the offending vehicle. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte before the Tribunal. Respondent No.2- insurer in its written statement denied the contention of the claimant and denied its liability to pay the compensation and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

#5. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:41007 MFA No. 8527 of 2022 HC-KAR

#6. The claimants to prove their case examined one witness as PW-1 and marked 19 documents, as per Exs.P-1 to P-19. Respondents examined one witness as RW-1 and marked document as Exs.R-1 to R-4.

#7. The Tribunal after hearing both parties and appreciating the evidence on record, held that the accident occurred due to the negligence of rider of the motorcycle. The Tribunal has accepted the age of the deceased as 67 years at the time of the accident, assessed the notional income as Rs.14,500/- per month, applied the multiplier as '5' and awarded the following amount of compensation: Particulars Amount in Rs. Loss of dependency Loss of estate Towards petitioner No.1) spousal 4,35,000/- 15,000/- consortium (for 40,000/- Towards parental consortium petitioners No.2 and 3) (for 80,000/- Transportation of dead body and funeral expenses 15,000/- Medical expenses Total 1,46,769/- 7,31,769/- - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:41007 MFA No. 8527 of 2022 HC-KAR

#8. The only contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the Tribunal, instead of deducting 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses deducted 50%. The deceased left behind his wife and two children. Under such circumstances, as per the law laid down in the case of Sarla Verma And Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation And Another1 as well as National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others2, the appropriate deduction shall be 1/3rd and not 50%. Therefore, prayed to recalculate the compensation under the head 'loss of dependency', deducting 1/3rd of his income.

#9. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently contends that claimant Nos.2 and 3 are the major daughter and son of the deceased. Claimant No.2 was married long back and is residing in her husband's house and both of them were not dependent on the income of the deceased. The Tribunal, considering the said facts, deducted 50% of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses, since only the wife was dependent on his income. Hence, there is no error committed by the Tribunal. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the appeal. 1 2009 ACJ 1298 2 AIR 2017 SC 5157 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:41007 MFA No. 8527 of 2022 HC-KAR

#10. Undisputedly, claimant No.1 is a widow of the deceased and as rightly submitted by learned counsel for the appellants in the case of Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi (supra), in normal circumstances, when the deceased left behind his widow, then 1/3rd of the income shall be deducted towards personal expenses. Only in the case of unmarried persons deduction shall be 50%. There are no circumstances to take an exception to the said rule. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses.

#11. Income of the deceased was taken as Rs.14,500/- and the multiplier applicable to this case is '5'. Therefore, amount of compensation that shall be awarded under the head 'loss of dependency' is Rs.5,80,000/- (14,500 X 12 X 5 X 2/3). The Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,35,000/- under this head. Hence, the enhancement under loss of dependency is enhanced by Rs.1,45,000/- (5,80,000-4,35,000). The Tribunal has awarded just compensation under other heads and it does not call for any interference by this Court. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:41007 MFA No. 8527 of 2022 HC-KAR

#12. The claimant is entitled to interest on the said amount at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till its realisation and respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount.

#13. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The Appeal is allowed in part. ii) The judgment and award dated 19th July 2022, passed in MVC.No.2233/2020, by the VII Additional SCJ and ACMM, Member, MACT-3, Bengaluru, stands modified; iii) The claimants are entitled enhanced compensation of Rs.1,45,000/-, with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. iv) The respondent No.2 - Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within a period of six weeks from the date of award. v) The remaining portion of the award is not disturbed. vi) Draw award accordingly. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:41007 MFA No. 8527 of 2022 HC-KAR Registry is directed to send back the records along with a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE AMA CT-SG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30