Smt. Latha v. Smt. Manjula

ORDER

The Miscellaneous petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The exparte judgment and decree passed in M.C.2/2000 dt. 13.9.2001 on the file of this Court is set aside. M.C.2/2000 is restored to its original number. The parties are directed to proceed with this case."

[Emphasis Supplied]

17.1 It is not disputed by the parties that subsequently the divorce proceedings did not culminate into a decree since the deceased passed away.

17.2 The record also reflects that the appellant No.2 / Ganesh was 16 years old when the claim petition was filed. Thus, he was not a major and the apportionment of amounts awarded among the children of the deceased Manjunath, should have been uniform. While the two minor children of Smt. Manjula (second wife) have been awarded compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- each, appellant No.2/Ganesh who was also a minor son of the first wife Smt. Latha has been awarded compensation of only Rs.3,00,000/-. The Respondent No.4 who was the blind spinster sister of the deceased was also awarded a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. Given that there are six claimants for apportionment of compensation, and the status of both the wives as on date is of dependents, this Court deems it apposite to apportion the compensation amount equally

between the two wives as well as the three children of the deceased.

¶18Now for the purposes of calculation, since the deceased was a Jewellery shop owner, the average of the two years of Income Tax Returns of the deceased would have to be considered for taking the income of the deceased, as per the latest legal position in the judgment of Rashmirekha Tripathy v. Sriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.2 The relevant extract of the said judgment is set out below: "19. When it comes to self-employed/individuals carrying out their own business, in our view, the average of the income specified in the ITRs of up to the previous three years is to be taken as a reference point for assessment of annual income from their business. There may also be a scenario where only one or two ITRs have been filed. Given such scenarios and the fluctuation of income in these professions, surrounding circumstances are also to be taken into consideration. These would include:

a) The nature of the business (including geographic location, category etc.);

22026 SCC OnLine SC 1256

b) Growth pattern of the business and impact of death on the business; c) Potential growth of business (for instance certain businesses are capital intensive at the outset and are profitable at scale/in the future); d) Negative income (certain businesses may require losses in the initial years, which may not reflect the true financial standing); and e) Any other relevant factor relating to the business."

[Emphasis Supplied]

18.1 As per the Income tax returns of AY 2008-09 [Exhibit P21], the income is Rs.2,13,950/-. Further, as per the Income Tax Returns of AY 2009-10 [Exhibit P20], the income is Rs.2,59,307/-. The total of both the amounts would come to Rs.4,73,257/- and the average of both the income is Rs.2,36,629/- per annum. After deducting Rs.4,674/- towards the average tax paid and deducting a further amount of Rs.2,400/- towards Professional tax, the net annual income of the deceased Manjunath would be:

Rs.2,36,629 – Rs.4674 = Rs.2,31,955/-Rs.2,31,955 – Rs.2,400 = Rs.2,29,555/-

18.2 After deducting 1/5th of the said amount towards personal expenses, the amount would be as follows:

(2,29,555 – 45,911) = Rs.1,83,644/-.

18.3 Thus, the net annual income of the deceased would be taken as Rs.1,83,644/-.

¶19Since the deceased was aged 42 years at the time of his death, according to the decision of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi3 as well as Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.4, future prospects ought to have been awarded at 25%. Hence, adding 25% towards 'future prospects', the compensation towards 'loss of dependency' would be re-calculated as follows: Loss of Dependency Amount (in Rs.) [(2,29,555 – 1/5 = 1,83,644) + 25%) = 2,29,555 x 14]

Rs.32,13,770/-

19.1 There being six dependent members, as per the judgment of the Pranay Sethi case Rs.40,000/- each, i.e., Rs.2,40,000/- (40,000 x 6) ought to have been awarded

3 (2017) 16 SCC 680 4 (2009) 6 SCC 121

towards 'loss of consortium'. Then adding escalation at 30% on the non-conventional heads, the compensation towards 'loss of consortium' comes to Rs.2,40,000/- + 30% = Rs.3,12,000/-. The claimants are also entitled to escalation of 30% in respect of 'funeral expenses'.

19.2 In addition, the dependents are also entitled for compensation towards 'loss of estate' at Rs.25,000/- along with 30% escalation.

¶20Accordingly, the compensation is recalculated in the following manner: Sl.No. HEADS OF COMPENSATION AMOUNT (IN Rs.) Loss of dependency 32,13,770/-Funeral Expenses 32,500/-Loss of Estate 32,500/-Loss of consortium 3,12,000/-

TOTAL 35,90,770/-

AMOUNT AWARDED BY THE TRIBUNAL 33,79,886/-

ENHANCED COMPENSATION 2,10,884/-

¶21On the aspect of the interest at 6% awarded by the learned Tribunal, one of us Tara Vitasta Ganju J., in a recent judgment in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

vs. Sri.Malyadri.M And Others5 has examined this issue in detail and found that the award of interest @ 9% per annum in cases of death and in cases of permanent disability has been regularly upheld by the Supreme Court. It is apposite to extract the relevant portion of the judgment below: "24. Thus, an analysis of the precedents shows that the award of interest over the last 5-10 years has infact consistently been awarded @ 9% p.a. or upholding such an award.

xxx xxx xxx

¶29An analysis of the aforegoing discussions of the Supreme Court, reflects that the Supreme Court has consistently held that the award of interest is intended to recompensate the claimant for being deprived of the use of money, which ought to have been paid at the time of occurrence of the accident. The rate of interest, therefore, must be just, fair and reasonable, having regard to the prevailing economic conditions and bank rates.

29.1. The award of interest is usually determined at the prevailing bank rate of interest on a case-to-case basis and at the rate which is just and fair and reasonable.

29.2 There cannot be any 'straitjacket formula' in determining the rate of interest and that the same must depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The guiding principle remains that the rate must neither be punitive nor non-existent but must strike a balance

5 2026 SCC OnLine Kar 4090

between fairness to the claimant and reasonableness to the insurer.

29.3 The rate of interest 9% is more appropriate in case involving death and serious injury especially, where there is a long delay in the claimants receiving the compensation.

¶30In the present case, the accident occurred in the year2016 leading to the death of the wife of respondent No.1 and mother of respondent Nos.2 and 3. The award came to be passed in the year 2018. The learned Tribunal has deemed it apposite to award interest on the compensation@ 9% per annum. The award of interest is not punitive asis fair considering the prevailing economic condition and bank rates. In addition, it is now 10 years since the date of the accident.

[Emphasis Supplied]

21.1 The present case involved the death of a man aged 42 years old with six dependents being his two wives, children and blind spinster sister, all of whom have lost their only source of income. It has also been 16 years since the accident. In these circumstances and given the settled legal position, we deem it apposite to enhance the interest to 8%.

¶22Hence, the dependants of the deceased Manjunath are entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 35,90,770/- along with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.

¶23As far as the apportionment of compensation is concerned, the said compensation shall be apportioned in the following manner: Sl.No. NAME & RELATIONSHIP WITH DECEASED MANJUNATH PERCENTAGE Smt. Latha / Appellant No.1 / first (divorced) wife 25% Smt. Manjula / Respondent No.1 / second wife 25% Master Ganesh / Appellant No.2 (son of first wife) 13% Master Preetham / Respondent No.2 / son of second wife 13% Kum. Aadya / Respondent No.3 / daughter of second wife 13% Savitri / Respondent No.4 / blind spinster sister 11%

TOTAL 100%

¶24Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER

(i) The appeal is partly allowed.

(ii) The Impugned Judgment and Award dated

03.09.2014 in MVC No.1143/2010 passed by the II Additional District & Sessions Judge and Member, MACT-III, Davanagere is modified by awarding total compensation of Rs.35,90,770/- along with

interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

(iii) The apportionment shall be in accordance with the Table set out at paragraph No.22 above.

(iv) The remaining portion of the Impugned Award of the learned Tribunal shall remain undisturbed.

(v) Amounts deposited before this Court if any, shall be sent to the learned Tribunal, for onward transmission.

(vi) The Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced compensation with interest applicable thereon, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

(vii) On such deposit of compensation, the same shall be released in favour of the dependents/ two wives, three children and unmarried sister as per the percentage of shares as specified in paragraph No.22 of this judgment, on filing of an appropriate application for withdrawal of the enhanced amount.

(viii) The Registry is directed to draw the modified Award accordingly.

(ix) The Registry is directed transmit a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal, along with its records.

(x) No order as to costs.

Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE

Sd/- (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE

KS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3194 OF 2015 (MV-D) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 377 OF 2015 (MV-D) MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2327 OF 2015 (MV-D) IN MFA NO.3194 OF 2015 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. MANJULA W/O LATE MANJUNATH G.JANNU, AGED 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, 2. MASTER PREETHAM S/O LATE MANJUNATH, AGED 9 YEARS, 3. KUM. AADYA D/O LATE MANJUNATH G.JANNU, AGED 7 YEARS, 4. SMT. SAVITHRI D/O LATE GANGADHAR JANNU, AGED 53 YEARS, ALL R/O NO.3101/1, 9TH MAIN, 2ND CROSS, M.C.C.BLOCK, DAVANAGERE-57701. Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA ((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:39870-DB( MFA(No.(3194(of(2015( C/W(MFA(No.(377(of(2015( MFA(No.(2327(of(2015( ,,,,,,,,,, , ( CNR:(KAHC010508692015( ( , APPELLANT,NO.2,&,3,ARE,MINORS, REPRESENTED,BY,NATURAL,GUARDIAN,, MOTHER/APPELLANT,NO.1-SMT.,MANJULA., …APPELLANTS, (BY,SMT.,SARITHA,KULKARNI.,,ADVOCATE), ( AND:( ( 1., SUDHAKAR.K.J., S/O,JAYADEVAAPPA,, AGE:,36,YEARS,, THR/O,#,1923/49,,45 ,MAIN,ROAD,, SWAMY,VIVEKANANDA,LAYOUT,, THNOW,R/O,7 ,CROSS,,KTJ,NAGAR,, DAVANAGERE,CITY-577,001., , 2., THE,MANAGER,, THE,NEW,INDIA,ASSURANCE,CO.,,LTD.,, R.K.ARCADE,,OPP:,VALI,MEDICAL,STORE,, VIDHYARTHI,BHAVAN,, DAVANGERE-577,001., , 3., SMT.,LATHA, D.V.REVANKAR,, AGE:,44,YEARS,, OCC:,PROPRIETOR-NAVEEN,LADIES,TAILOR., , 4., MASTER,GANESH, S/O,LATHA,, AGE:,21,YEARS,, , ALL,R/O,NAVEEN,LADIES,TAILOR,, NDDIAMOND,PLAZA,,2 ,FLOOR,,, DURGADA,BAYALU,,HUBLI., …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.,A.R.LAKSHMI,NARAYANA.,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R2;, ,,,,,,SMT.,SHOBHA,BHAVIKATH.,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R4;, ,,,,,,V/O/DTD:05.07.2016-NOTICE,TO,R1-DISPENSED,WITH;, ,,,,,,R3-SERVED), , ((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:39870-DB( MFA(No.(3194(of(2015( C/W(MFA(No.(377(of(2015( MFA(No.(2327(of(2015( ,,,,,,,,,, , ( CNR:(KAHC010508692015( ( THIS, MFA, FILED, U/S, 173(1), OF, MV, ACT, AGAINST, THE, JUDGMENT, AND, AWARD, DATED, 03.09.2014, PASSED, IN, MVC, NO.1143/2010,ON,THE,FILE,OF,THE,II,ADDITIONAL,DISTRICT, AND,SESSIONS,JUDGE,AND,MEMBER,,MACT-III,,DAVANAGERE,, PARTLY,ALLOWING,THE,CLAIM,PETITION,FOR,COMPENSATION, AND,SEEKING,ENHANCEMENT,OF,COMPENSATION., ( (IN(MFA(NO.(377(OF(2015(( ( BETWEEN:( , THE,MANAGER,, THE,NEW,INDIA,ASSURANCE,COMPANY,LIMITED,, R.K.ARCADE,,OPPOSITE,TO,VALI,MEDICAL,STORE,, VIDYARTHI,BHAVAN,,DAVANAGERE,, REPRESENTED(, BY,THE,MANAGER,, REGIONAL,OFFICE,(MOTOR,TP,HUB),, THE,NEW,INDIA,ASSURANCE,COMPANY,LIMITED,, MAHALAKSHMI,CHAMBERS,, NO.9,,M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560,001., ,...APPELLANT (BY,SRI.,A.R.LAKSHMI,NARAYANA.,,ADVOCATE), , AND:( , 1., SMT.,MANJULA, AGED,ABOUT,41,YEARS,, HOUSE,WIFE, , 2., MASTER,PREETHAM, AGED,ABOUT,9,YEARS,, , 3., KUM.,AADYA, AGED,ABOUT,6½,YEARS,, , 1,IS,THE,WIFE,AND,, 2,AND,3,ARE,THE,CHILDREN, RESPECTIVELY,,OF,, LATE,SHRI,MANJUNATHA.G.JANNU,, ((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:39870-DB( MFA(No.(3194(of(2015( C/W(MFA(No.(377(of(2015( MFA(No.(2327(of(2015( ,,,,,,,,,, , ( CNR:(KAHC010508692015( ( , RESPONDENTS,2,&,3,BEING,MINORS;, ARE,REPRESETNED,BY,, THEIR,MOTHER/NATURAL,GUARDIAN,, 1ST,RESPONDENT, , 4., SMT.,SAVITHRI, D/O,SHRI,GANGADHARA,JANNU,, AGED,ABOUT,53,YEARS,, , ALL,THE,RESPONDENTS,1,TO,4, ARE,RESIDING,AT,, ND THNO.3101/1,,2 ,CROSS,,9 ,MAIN,,, MCC-B,BLOCK,,, DAVANAGERE-577,001., , 5., SHRI.,K.J.SUDHAKAR, S/O,SHRI,K.JAYADEVAPPA,, AGED,ABOUT,36,YEARS,, RESIDING,AT,NO.1923/49,, TH TH7 ,CROSS,,45 ,MAIN,, SWAMI,VIVEKANANDA,LAYOUT,, KTJ,NAGAR,,DAVANAGERE-577,001., , 6., SMT.,LATHA, D/O,SHRI,G.V.REVANKAR, AGED,ABOUT,44,YEARS,, PROPRIETOR,, NAVEEN,LADIES,TAILOR,, , 7., MASTER,GANESH, S/O,SMT.LATHA, AGED,ABOUT,21,YEARS,, , RESPONDENTS,6,&,7,ARE,, RESIDING,AT, NAVEEN,LADIES,TAILOR,, ND2 ,FLOOR,,DIAMOND,PLAZA,, DURGADA,BAIL,,HUBLI-580,020., ...RESPONDENTS, , (BY,SRI.,SAVITHA,KULKARNI,FOR,R1,&,R4.,,ADVOCATE;, ((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:39870-DB( MFA(No.(3194(of(2015( C/W(MFA(No.(377(of(2015( MFA(No.(2327(of(2015( ,,,,,,,,,, , ( CNR:(KAHC010508692015( ( ,,,,,R2,&,R3,ARE,MIN