Karnataka High Court
Smt.Seema And Ors vs Usman Sab And Ors on 3 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4530-DB
MFA No.200300 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200300 OF 2018 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.SEEMA
W/O LATE ANILKUMAR GARUDKAR,
AGE: 40 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD.
2. GIRISH
S/O LATE ANILKUMAR
AGE: 21 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT,
Digitally signed by
BASALINGAPPA
3. KRISHNAI
SHIVARAJ D/O ANILKUMAR
DHUTTARGAON
Location: HIGH AGE:21 YEARS,
COURT OF OCC: STUDENT,
KARNATAKA
4. RAMGOPAL
S/O ANILKUMAR GARUDKAR
AGE: 14 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT.
MINOR REPRESENTED
BY APPELLANT NO.1.
5. SMT. SAVITHABAI
W/O SRINIVAS RAO GARUDKAR
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4530-DB
MFA No.200300 of 2018
AGE: 67 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
ALL ARE R/O: PLOT NO.63,
NAVAJEEVAN NAGAR,
BEHIND P & T QUARTER,
KALABURAGI - 585 102.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI VENKATESH G.GAIDHANKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. USMAN SAB
S/O IMAM SAB CHINNUR,
AGE: 28 YEARS,
OCC: DRIVER OF LORRY BEARING
NO.RJ-19/GA-1689,
R/O: A.P.BHADRAPUR,
TQ: NAVALAGUNDA,
DIST: DHARWAD - 585 208.
2. MANAGER, COUNDRY FREIGHT CARRIER,
OWNER OF THE LORRY NO.RJ-19/GA-1689,
OFFICE ADDRESS: MAJEERWADI,
BHOPELE NAGAR, HOTGI ROAD,
SOLAPUR (M.H), KARNATAKA OFFICE:NO.7,
GANGAVATHI ROAD,
GINIGERA, TQ: DIST: KOPPAL - 585 201.
3. DIVISIONAL MANAGER
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
OPP. MINI VIDHAN SOUDHA,
STATION ROAD, KALABURAGI - 585 101.
(POLICY NO.242202/31/2014/394
PERIOD FROM 1-5-2013 TO 30.04.2014)
4. BASAVARAJ
S/O SRIMANTHRAYA CHINCHOLLI
AGE: 39 YEARS,
OCC: DRIVER OF CAR BEARING
NO.KA.50/M-9813,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4530-DB
MFA No.200300 of 2018
R/O: GOLA(B) TQ: ALAND,
DIST: KALABURAGI - 585 101.
5. MANAGER, G.V.R. INFRA PROJECTS LTD.,
OWNER OF CAR BEARING
NO.KA.50/M-9813,
NO.476, TALA CAUVERY LAYOUT,
AMRUTHA HALLI, BYATARAYANAPURA,
NEW BANGALORE, INTERNATIONAL
AIR PORT ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 092.
6. LEGAL MANAGER
I.C.I.C.I. LOMBARD GENERAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
1-45/A, KOTHARI COMPLEX,
THIMMAPURI CHOWK,
COURT ROAD, STATION BAZAR ROAD,
KALABURAGI- 585 102.
7. SRINIVAS RAO
S/O SIDRAMAPPA GARUDKAR
AGE: 78 YEARS,
OCC: RETD. TEACHER,
PLOT NO.63 NAVAJEEVAN NAGAR,
BEHIND P & T QUARTER,
KALABURAGI - 585 102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI MANJUNATH MALLAYYA SHETTY, ADVCOATE FOR R6;
NOTICE TO R1, R2, R4, R5 AND R7 ARE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL OF
THE APPELLANT AND SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 06.04.2017 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND M.A.C.T., KALABURAGI IN M.V.C. NO.49/2014
AND BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD ENHANCE
THE COMPENSATION AWARD AMOUNT FROM RS.71,22,256/-
TO RS.1,35,00,000/- IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4530-DB
MFA No.200300 of 2018
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
ASHOK S. KINAGI J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the claimants/appellants under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') challenging the judgment and award dated 06.04.2017 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kalaburagi, (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in MVC No.49/2014.
2. Parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.
3. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal are that on 21.10.2013 the deceased-Anilkumar had been to Hubli from Gulbarga to attend an official meeting of Railway Department. On 21.10.2013 at about 9.30 p.m., after attending the meeting, he was returning in an Innova car bearing registration No.KA.05/M-9813 on Koppal-Hospet NH-63 Basapur Seema road. The driver of the said car by driving the car in a high speed and in a rash and negligent -5- NC: 2024:KHC-K:4530-DB MFA No.200300 of 2018 manner caused the accident by dashing to the parked goods lorry bearing registration No.RJ-19/GA-1689 which was parked at the left side on half of the tar road without indication or parking lights by respondent No.1. Due to the accident, the deceased-Anilkumar sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. The petitioners have contended that the deceased-Anilkumar was aged about 46 years and was working as an Executive Engineer of Karnataka Roads Development Corporation, Gulbarga and he was drawing monthly salary of Rs.65,000/-. The petitioners were depending on the income of the deceased and he was the only bread earner in the family. Due to the death of Anilkumar, they are put to untold hardship. Therefore, petitioners being the legal heirs of the deceased-Anilkumar filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation of Rs.1,35,00,000/- for the death of Anilkumar in the road traffic accident.
4. Inspite of service of notice, respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained absent and they were placed exparte. -6-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4530-DB MFA No.200300 of 2018 Respondent Nos.3 and 6 have filed separate written statements denying the averments made in the claim petition. Respondent No.3 mainly contended that the driver of the offending lorry and the driver of the car had no valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident and the compensation claimed is too exorbitant. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim petition. Respondent No.6 filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the insurance policy was valid as on the date of the accident and the liability is subject to terms and conditions of the policy and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
5. The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed the issues.
6. In order to prove the contents of the claim petition, petitioner No.1 was examined as PW.1 and got marked 21 documents as Exs.P1 to P21. Respondent No.3 examined its officer as RW.1 and got marked one -7- NC: 2024:KHC-K:4530-DB MFA No.200300 of 2018 document as Ex.D1. The official of respondent No.6 was examined as RW.2.
7. The Tribunal, after recording the evidence, hearing both side and on assessment of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part with cost against respondent Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6. It is ordered that the petitioners are entitled for total compensation of Rs.71,22,256/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till the realization of entire compensation amount. Further, the Tribunal directed respondent Nos.3 and 6 being the insurer of the offending vehicles to deposit the entire compensation amount with interest and cost at the rate of 50:50 before the Tribunal within 30 days from the date of the said judgment and award.
8. The petitioners/appellants, being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, have -8- NC: 2024:KHC-K:4530-DB MFA No.200300 of 2018 preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 6/Insurance Companies.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the deceased-Anilkumar was working as an Executive Engineer and was drawing gross salary of Rs.56,963/- per month. But, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.45,873/-. He submits that the Tribunal has committed an error in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.45,873/-. On these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal.
11. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 6/Insurance Companies supports the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and -9- NC: 2024:KHC-K:4530-DB MFA No.200300 of 2018 proper and does not call for any interference. On these grounds, they pray to dismiss the appeal.
12. Perused the records and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
13. The point that arises for our consideration is with regard to quantum of compensation.
14. It is not in dispute that the deceased-Anilkumar met with accident and he sustained multiple injuries and succumbed to the injuries in the road traffic accident that occurred on 21.10.2013. In order to establish that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of both the offending vehicles, the petitioners have produced certified copy of the FIR marked as Ex.P1 and certified copy of charge sheet marked as Ex.P6. Ex.P6 discloses that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the drivers of both the vehicles. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in recording finding that the petitioners have proved that the accident has
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4530-DB MFA No.200300 of 2018 occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the drivers of both the offending vehicles.
15. Insofar as quantum of compensation, it is the case of the petitioners that the deceased-Anilkumar was working as Executive Engineer in the Karnataka Roads Development Corporation, Gulbarga and he was drawing salary of Rs.65,000/- per month. In order to establish that the deceased-Anilkumar was working as Executive Engineer in the Karnataka Roads Development Corporation, Gulbarga, the petitioners have produced salary certificate for the month of September, 2013 marked as Ex.P8. From perusal of Ex.P8, it discloses that the deceased-Anilkumar was drawing gross salary of Rs.56,963/- per month. Therefore, the annual gross salary of the deceased would be Rs.6,83,556/- (Rs.56,963 x 12). After deducting Rs.2,400/- towards professional tax, the annual income of the deceased would come to Rs.6,81,156/-. As per the income tax slab for the financial year 2013-2014, tax is exempted upto Rs.2,00,000/- and
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4530-DB MFA No.200300 of 2018 for the income above Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.6,81,156 Rs.2,00,000 =Rs.4,81,156/-), 10% tax has to be deducted (Rs.4,81,156/- x 10%=Rs.48,115). After deducting income-tax of 10%, it comes to Rs.6,33,041/- (Rs.6,81,156 - Rs.48,115). Thus, we re-assess the income of the deceased at Rs.6,33,041/- per annum. To the aforesaid amount, as the deceased was aged 47 years, 30% of the said amount has to be added on account of future prospects in view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157. Thus, the income comes to Rs.8,22,953/-. After excluding claimant No.5, there are five claimants. Hence, 1/4th of the said income has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased which comes to Rs.6,17,215/- (Rs.8,22,953/- - Rs.2,05,738/-). Taking into account the age of the deceased which was 47 years at the time of accident, multiplier of 13 has to be adopted as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4530-DB MFA No.200300 of 2018 Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in (2009)6 SCC 121. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs.80,23,795/- (Rs.6,17,215 x 13) on account of loss of dependency.
16. Further, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Others reported in (2018)18 SCC 130, each petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.44,000/- towards loss of consortium. The petitioners are six in number, hence, the compensation towards loss of consortium would be Rs.2,64,000/- (44,000x6). In addition, the petitioners/appellants are entitled to a sum of Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.16,500/- towards funeral and transportation expenses.
17. Petitioner No.5 is the father of the deceased and he is a retired teacher and he was getting pension. Therefore, petitioner No.5 was not the dependent on the
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4530-DB MFA No.200300 of 2018 deceased. Hence, the Tribunal was justified in not awarding compensation to petitioner No.5.
18. Thus, in all, petitioner Nos.1 to 4 and 6 are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.83,20,795/- as against Rs.71,22,256/- awarded by the Tribunal.
19. In view of the above discussion, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER i. The appeal is allowed in part.
ii. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified.
iii. Petitioner Nos.1 to 4 and 6 are entitled to total compensation of Rs.83,20,795/- as against Rs.71,22,256/- awarded by the Tribunal. Petitioner Nos.1 to 4 and 6 are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.11,98,539/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4530-DB MFA No.200300 of 2018 iv. Respondent Nos.3 and 6/Insurance Companies are directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal, at the ratio of 50:50, within a period of eight weeks from the date of the receipt of certified copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE NB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19 Ct;Vk