Smt.G. Susheelamma W/O Late Golla Janardhana v. J. Bhaskar S/O J.Venkatesh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B. MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103162 OF 2015 (MV-D) BETWEEN:

¶1SMT. G. SUSHEELAMMA W/O. LATE GOLLA JANARDHANA AGE: 41 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD

¶2MISS G. SHARADA D/O. LATE GOLLA JANARDHANA AGE: 22 YEARS OCC: STUDENT,

¶3MISS G. GEETHA D/O. LATE GOLLA JANARDHANA AGE: 20 YEARS OCC: STUDENT

¶4MISS G. MAMATHA D/O. LATE GOLLA JANARDHANA AGE: 18 YEARS OCC: STUDENT ALL ARE R/O: MILLERPET, BELLARI. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. S.M. KALWAD, ADVOCATE)

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.11.15 10:27:26 +0530 NC:(2025:KHC-D:15330( MFA(No.(103162(of(2015( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( AND:( (

1., J.,BHASKAR,S/O.,J.VENKATESH, AGE:,26,YEARS,OCC:,DRIVER, R/O:,KUMMARAVANDANAPALLI,VILLAGE,, KADIRI,MANDALAM,,DIST:,ANANTAPUR., ,

2., ANDHARA,PRADESH,STATE,ROAD,TRANSPORT, CORPORATION,BY,ITS,, CONTROLLER,AND,M.D.,,, REGIONAL,MANAGER,,RAYADURGA,DEPOT,,, ANANTHAPUR,DIVISION,,ANDHRA,PRADESH., …RESPONDENTS, , (BY, NOTICE, TO, R1, IS, DISPENSED, WITH, V/O., DATED:,

05.12.2017;, SMT.,ARUNA,DESHPANDE,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R2,(VC)), , , THIS, MFA,IS, FILED, UNDER, SECTION, 173(1), MOTOR, VEHICLES,ACT,,1988,,PRAYING,TO,MODIFY,THE,JUDGMENT, AND, AWARD, DATED, 10.12.2014, MADE, IN, M.V.C.NO.269/2014,PASSED,BY,THE,COURT,OF,III,MOTOR, ACCIDENT, CLAIMS, TRIBUNAL,, BELLARI, AND, CONSEQUENTLY, ENHANCE, THE, COMPENSATION, AMOUNT, AS,CLAIMED,IN,THE,CLAIM,PETITION,,IN,THE,INTEREST,OF, JUSTICE,AND,EQUITY., , , THIS, APPEAL,, COMING, ON, FOR, ADMISSION,, THIS, DAY,,JUDGMENT,WAD,DELIVERED,THEREIN,AS,UNDER:, (

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.)

This is the appeal filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, praying for enhancement of compensation by the claimants unsatisfied by the judgment and award passed in MVC No.269/2014 dated 10.12.2014 on the file of the III Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bellary, (for short, 'the Tribunal').

¶2The parties would be referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal, for the sake of convenience and clarity.

¶3The case of claimants before trial Court in nutshell is that on 11.07.2013 at 03.00 p.m., Golla Janardhan and others boarded in an auto rickshaw bearing registration No.AP-02/TA-0325 from Rayadurga to Gramadatla Village and it met with an accident with APSRTC Bus bearing registration No.AP-11/Z-1831 on Rayadurga-Kanekal road near T. Veerapuram forest and because of the accident, the auto turtle on its left side and inmates of said

auto rikshaw including this Golla Janardhan have sustained injuries and Golla Janardhan died at the spot itself. The claimants contended that they are the wife and unmarried daughters of deceased and they were entirely depending upon the deceased for their livelihood. The deceased was aged about 35 years and doing agricultural work getting salary of ₹.10,000/- per month. Hence, prayed for compensation under different heads.

¶4On service of notice to respondents, respondent No.1 remained absent and respondent No.2-APSRTC represented by its counsel filed the objection statement wherein it admitted the validity of policy as on the date of accident. However, contented that the accident happened due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the auto driver and hence, they prayed for dismissal of petition.

¶5On behalf of claimants, claimant No.1 was examined as P.W.1, got marked documents at Exs.P.1 to

P.10 and closed their side before the Tribunal. On behalf of respondents, no evidence was let in.

¶6After recording evidence of both sides and hearing arguments of both sides, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident happened due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the APSRTC bus bearing registration No.AP-11/Z-1831 and saddled the liability on respondent No.2, holding that the claimants are entitled for compensation at ₹.7,00,000/- under the following different heads:

¶1Loss of dependency Rs.6,30,000/-

¶2Transportation of dead body and funeral expenses Rs.20,000/-

¶3Loss of consortium to the 1st petitioner Rs.25,000/-

¶4Loss of estate Rs.25,000/-

Total Rs.7,00,000/-

¶7Praying for enhancement of the compensation, appellants are before this Court.

¶8Having heard the arguments of both sides and verifying the records, the only point that arises for consideration is "Whether the claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation?"

¶9Finding of this Court on the above point is in "affirmative" for the following reasons:

¶10The date, time and place of accident and the age of deceased are not in dispute. The accident happened in the year 2013. The age of deceased was 45 years. He was doing agriculture and thus, no document is produced to show what his actual income was. Under those circumstances, relying on the KSLSA guidelines, notional income of the deceased will be taken at ₹.7,000/- as the accident occurred in the year 2013. Relying upon the judgment of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others1, 25% of the above income is to be added towards future prospects as deceased was aged

1 2017(16) SCC 680

about 45 years as on the date of accident. Hence, if 7,000/- plus this 25% future prospects is added, his income per month would be ₹.8,750/-. There were 4 dependents on the deceased. Hence, relying upon judgment of Honb'le Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another2, 1/4th of his income i.e. ₹.2,188/- is to be deducted towards his personal expenses from the aforesaid income. Hence, the income of deceased that would spend towards claimants is ₹.6,562/- per month. It is to be multiplied by '12' to get his annual income and the relevant multiplier is '14' as per Sarla Verma's case (supra). Hence, the claimants are entitled for ₹.11,02,416/- under this head instead of ₹.6,30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶11As far as transportation of dead body and funeral expenses, as per the dictum of Pranay Sethi's case (supra) and Magma General Insurance Company Limited

2 (2009) 6 SCC 121

Vs. Nanu Ram & Others3 case. ₹.15,000/- plus 10% escalation charges to be awarded; whereas the Tribunal has awarded ₹.20,000/- and hence, it is to be reduced to ₹.16,500/-; likewise, the amount towards loss of estate to be awarded is ₹.15,000/- plus 10% escalation charges to be awarded as per the dictum of the judgment cited supra. But, it was awarded at ₹.25,000/- by the Tribunal and hence it is to be reduced to ₹.16,500/-. As far as loss of consortium is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded loss of consortium at ₹.25,000/- only to the first petitioner. However, as per the guidelines given by Pranay Sethi's case and Magma's case cited supra, as the accident occurred in the year 2013, all the claimants are entitled for ₹.44,000/- each towards loss of consortium. The petitioners are entitled for compensation under the head loss of spousal consortium to claimant No.1 and parental consortium to claimant Nos.2 to 4 i.e. ₹.44,000/- each (including 10% escalation) so in total ₹.1,76,000/-. Thus,

3 (2018)18 SCC 130

they are entitled for ₹.1,76,000/- under the said head. The total compensation to be awarded to claimants is ₹.13,11,416/- instead of ₹.7,00,000/- under following heads:

¶1Loss of dependency ₹.11,02,416/-

¶2Transportation of dead body and funeral expenses ₹.16,500/-

¶3Loss of consortium to petitioner No.1 to 4 (40,000X4=16,00,000/-) ₹.1,76,000/-

¶4Loss of estate ₹.16,500/-

Total ₹.13,11,416/-

¶12For the reasons recorded above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER a) The appeal filed by the claimants is allowed in part. b) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified holding that the claimants are entitled to modified compensation of ₹.13,11,416/- as against ₹.7,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

c) The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. d) The respondent/insurance company shall deposit the enhanced compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. e) The apportionment, disbursement and deposit of the enhanced compensation shall be made as per award of the Tribunal. f) Draw modified award accordingly. g) No order as to costs. Sd/- (GEETHA K.B.) JUDGE

VMB CT-CMU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 19