Karnataka High Court
Sri. Annappa And Anr vs Shivakumar And Ors on 25 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5319-DB
MFA No.201603 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH 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.201603 OF 2018 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. ANNAPPA
S/O HANMANTAPPA JAMADAR,
AGED ABOUT: 63 YEARS,
OCC: NIL,
2. SMT. NANDA
W/O ANNAPPA JAMADAR,
AGE: 55 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
Digitally signed by BOTH ARE R/AT HOUSE NO.11-45/17D,
BASALINGAPPA
SHIVARAJ AMBIKA NILAYA SADARE CHOWK,
DHUTTARGAON
Location: HIGH MATA MANIKESHWARI COLONY,
COURT OF BRAHAMPUR, KALABURAGI - 585 102.
KARNATAKA
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI NARENDRA N. BETTAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHIVAKUMAR
S/O MANIKAPPA WALI,
AGE: 30 YEARS,
OCC: OWNER CUM DRIVER
OF VEHICLE NO.KA-9-A-5614
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5319-DB
MFA No.201603 of 2018
TUM TUM,
R/O YALAWANTAGI (B),
TQ & DIST: KALABURAGI - 585 102.
2. MALAPPA
S/O VIRANNA
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O H.NO.26, AURAD (B),
TQ & DIST: KALABURAGI - 585 102.
(INSURED PERSON VEHICLE
NO.KA-09/A-5614 TUM TUM,
POLICY NO.610401/31/12/6300002223
VALID :10.8.2012 TO 9.8.2013.
3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD,
THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER
DR. JAWALI COMPLEX,
SUPER MARKET,KALABURAGI.
POLICY NO.610401/31/12/6300002223
VALID :10.8.2012 TO 9.8.2013 OF
VEHICLE NO. KA-9/A-5614, TUMTUM)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI DEEPAK V. BARAD, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
V/O DTD. 28.06.2023 R1 AND R2 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND
MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD IN THE MVC
NO.1099/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AT
KALABURAGI PASSED ON 17.05.2018 AWARD PREPARED ON
25.05.2018 FOR RS.8,48,000/- BY ENHANCING AWARD
RS.34,58,000/- AS URGED IN THE APPEAL, BY ALLOWING THIS
APPEAL WITH COSTS.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
AND
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5319-DB
MFA No.201603 of 2018
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed by the appellants being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kalaburagi (for short, 'the Tribunal') in MVC No.1099/2015 dated 17.05.2018.
2. Parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. Appellants are the petitioners and the respondents are the respondents before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts leading to rise filing of this appeal are as under:
On 19.03.2013 at about 9.30 p.m, son of the petitioners namely Srikanth was proceeding on motorcycle bearing No.KA-32/R-2901 towards Kalaburagi, near Ali Hall Bridge, Aurad(B) limits, Kalaburagi, at that time a Tum Tum vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-09/A-5614 -4- NC: 2024:KHC-K:5319-DB MFA No.201603 of 2018 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came and dashed to the motorcycle. As a result, Srikanth sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. It is contended that the deceased was working as an Assistant Engineer and getting salary of Rs.18,000/- p.m. Due to his death the petitioners have lost their beloved family member, who was the only earning member of the family. Hence, the petitioners being the legal heirs of the deceased filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation on account of death of Srikanth.
4. The respondent No.1 though served with the notice, remained absent and hence placed exparte. Respondent No.2 did not file written statement. Respondent No.3 filed the written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition contending that driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim petition. -5-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5319-DB MFA No.201603 of 2018
5. The Tribunal, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed relevant issues. The Petitioner No.1 in order to prove his case examined himself as PW.1 and got marked 11 documents as Exs.P1 to 11. Official of respondent No.3 was examined as RW.1 and examined one witness as RW.2 and got marked 3 documents as Exs.R1 to 3.
6. The Tribunal, after recording the evidence, hearing on both sides and on the assessment of oral and documentary evidence, partly allowed the claim petition with costs and held that the petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.8,48,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization and held that respondent Nos.2 and 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation and directed respondent No.3 to deposit the award amount with interest within 60 days from the date of compensation award. The petitioners being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, have filed this appeal.
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5319-DB MFA No.201603 of 2018
7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned counsel for respondent No.3.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, the deceased was working in the cadre of Assistant Engineer with effect from 29.12.2010 and thereafter he had applied for regularization of his service. He died on 19.03.2013 in a road traffic accident. After the demise of Srikanth, the petitioners have challenged the endorsement dated 29.07.2017 in W.P.No.54251/2017 passed by learned Single Judge vide order dated 30.11.2020, allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioners and directed Corporation i.e., Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (for short 'KPTCL'), to consider the case of the petitioners' son Srikanth for regularization of his service as on 29.12.2010 and he submits that in pursuant to the order passed by the learned Single Judge, KPTCL vide communication dated 03.07.2021 regularized the service of Srikanth with effect from 13.12.2011 and fixed the pay at Rs.27,735/-, the compensation awarded -7- NC: 2024:KHC-K:5319-DB MFA No.201603 of 2018 by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, on these grounds, prays to allow the appeal.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3 supports the impugned judgment and award and submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference. Hence, on these grounds he prays to dismiss the appeal.
10. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The point that arises for our consideration is with regard to the quantum of compensation.
11. It is not in dispute that, the deceased Srikanth met with an accident and sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. In order to prove that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, the petitioner No.1 has produced certified copy of FIR marked as Ex.P1 and certified copy of the charge sheet marked as Ex.P3. From -8- NC: 2024:KHC-K:5319-DB MFA No.201603 of 2018 the perusal of Ex.P3, it discloses that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle.
12. Insofar as the quantum of compensation, it is the case of the petitioners that Srikanth was working as an Assistant Engineer in KPTCL on a contract basis pursuant to the employment notification dated 07.02.2007. The other Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers appointed along with deceased Srikanth i.e., son of the petitioners approached this Court in W.P.No.47587-47591/2012 and connected matters seeking for a mandamus directing KPTCL and others to regularize their service. Learned Single Judge vide order dated 16.12.2015 disposed of the batch of writ petitions directing the Corporation to regularize the service of Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers including petitioners' son with effect from 29.12.2010. Pursuant to the order in aforesaid writ petitions, the Corporation regularized the service of Assistant Engineers, service on contract of Assistant -9- NC: 2024:KHC-K:5319-DB MFA No.201603 of 2018 Engineers and Junior Engineers of 2003, 2004 and 2006 batches with effect from 29.12.2010 and subsequently, petitioner No.1 submitted the representation to the Corporation requesting to regularize the service of his son Srikanth with effect from 29.12.2010 and to pay consequential death benefits including arrears of salary. The corporation issued endorsement dated 29.07.2017. The petitioner No.1 aggrieved by the endorsement issued by the Corporation preferred the writ petition in W.P.No.54251/2017. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 30.11.2020 disposed of the writ petition and certified copy of the writ petition is marked as Ex.P12, wherein the writ Court directing Corporation to consider the case of the petitioners' son for regularization of his service as on 29.12.2010. Pursuant to the order passed in the writ petition No.54251/2017, Corporation regularized the service of the petitioners' son Srikanth and the copy of communication dated 03.07.2021 is marked as Ex.P13 and also letter dated 23.09.2021 is marked as Ex.P14, letter dated 02.12.2021 is marked as Ex.P15, letter dated
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5319-DB MFA No.201603 of 2018 09.04.2021 is marked as Ex.P16 and pay fixation statement from 14.12.2011 to 13.12.2012 is marked as Ex.P16(a). Exs.P12 to 16 are marked by this Court with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
13. From the perusal of Ex.P16, it discloses that the salary of Srikanth was fixed at Rs.27,735/-. The deceased was aged about 34 years as on the date of accident, his monthly income is assessed at Rs.27,735/- and he was working in the KPTCL. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, 50% of his income has to be added to the monthly income towards future prospects. Thus, it comes to Rs.41,602/- (Rs.27,735 + Rs.13,867). The deceased was a bachelor as on the date of accident, 50% has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased out of Rs.41,602/- which comes to Rs.20,801/-. The deceased was aged about 34 years. The multiplier applicable to his age group is '16' as per the
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5319-DB MFA No.201603 of 2018 judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC
121. Thus, the petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.39,93,792/- (Rs.20,801 X 12 X 16) under the head of 'loss of dependency'.
14. Further, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, each petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs.44,000/- towards loss of consortium. There are two petitioners, hence the compensation towards loss of consortium would be Rs.88,000/- (Rs.44,000 X 2). In addition to it, the petitioners are entitled for a sum of Rs.16,500/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate.
15. Thus, we re-assess the compensation as under:
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5319-DB
MFA No.201603 of 2018
Sl. Heads By this Court
No.
1. Funeral expenses and Rs.16,500/-
Transportation charges
2. Loss of dependency Rs.39,93,792/-
3. Loss of consortium Rs.88,000/-
4. Loss of estate Rs.16,500/-
Total Rs.41,14,792/-
Enhanced Rs.32,66,792/-
compensation
16. Thus, the petitioners are entitled for total compensation of Rs.41,14,792/- as against Rs.8,48,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, the petitioners are entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.32,66,792/- with interest @ 6%. p.a.
17. In view of the above discussion, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(a) The appeal is allowed in part.
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5319-DB MFA No.201603 of 2018
(b) The impugned judgment and award dated 17.05.2018 passed by the Tribunal is modified.
(c) The petitioners are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.41,14,792/- as against Rs.8,48,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The petitioners are entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.32,66,792/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
(d) The respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount before the Tribunal with interest within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.
(e) Rest of the judgment passed by the Tribunal insofar as the apportionment is concerned is maintained as it is.
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5319-DB MFA No.201603 of 2018
(f) Registry to transmit the trial Court records to the Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE SKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13