Karnataka High Court
Annapurna vs Teefil Dsouza Mathas on 2 December, 2021
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 02 N D DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
M.F.A.NO.22751/2013 (MV)
BETWEEN:
SMT.ANNAPURNA
W/O BASAYYA HIREMATH,
AGE: 50 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSE WIFE,
R/O: DR. S.B.HIREMATH,
GANDHICHOWK,
NAVALGUND. ... APPELLANT
(BY MISS. REEBENA SHIVAPUR, FOR SRI.M.K.PATIL,
ADVOCATE)
AND
1 . MR. TEEFIL DSOUZA MATHAS.
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: H.NO.237/1,
NEAR BAMBOLIM CROSS,
BAMBOLIM GOA.
2 . THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.
ASHIRWAD,
GUANEKAR BUILDING,
TISK ROAD,
PANDA GOA.
2
3 . SRI.SATISH DATTATRAYA BHAT,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: INDIRA NAGAR,
YALLAPUR ROAD,
SIRSI-581401.
4 . NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
I FLOOR, 1628,
KAIKINI ROAD,
KARWAR-581301.
... RESPONDENTS
(R1 NOTICE SERVED)
(BY SRI.S.S.KOLIWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
(R3 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)
(BY SRI.C.V.ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS MISC.FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
04.06.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO. 230/2008 ON THE FILE
OF THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AND
MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, DHARWAD, SITTING AT
NAVALGUND, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION
FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPNESATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated
04.06.2012 passed by I Additional Senior Civil Judge
and CJM and A.M.A.C.T. Dharwad, (for short,
'Tribunal') in MVC No. 230/2008 this appeal is filed by
claimants seeking for enhancement of compensation.
2. Miss. Reebena Shivapur, advocate for Sri.
M.H.Patil, learned counsel for claimant/appellant
submitted that in an accident that occurred on
15.03.2004 between tipper lorry bearing registration
No.KA-31/4613 and another lorry bearing registration
No.GA-01/T-9344, Mahantesh, who was on duty as
cleaner died. Claiming compensation for his untimely
death, parents filed claim petition under Section 166 of
the Motor Vehicle Act (herein after refer to as 'Act')
against owners and insurers of both vehicles.
3. On service of summons respondents opposed
claim petition, seeking enhancement of compensation.
On contest, Tribunal held that accident occurred due to
rash and negligent driving of both drivers and
apportioned contributory negligence to an extent of
50% each. Tribunal determined age of deceased as 28
years, occupation as cleaner, monthly income at
Rs.3,000/-, deducting '1/3' towards 'personal
expenses' and applying multiplier '14', awarded of
compensation of Rs.4,36,800/- towards 'loss of
dependency'. It also awarded Rs.30,000/- under
conventional heads. Not satisfied with quantum of
compensation claimant is in appeal.
4. Learned counsel submitted that tribunal
erred in taking meager monthly income of Rs.3,000/-
and without adding future prospects, applying
multiplier corresponding to age of younger parent
awarded inadequate compensation.
5. On the other hand, Sri. C.V. Angadi, learned
counsel for respondent no.4 and Sri. S.S.Koliwad,
learned counsel for respondent no.2 supported the
award and opposed enhancement. It was submitted
that deceased was a bachelor. Tribunal erroneously
deducted 1/3 r d towards personal expenses, instead of
'½' and awarded excess compensation which requires
to be reduced.
6. From above submission, occurrence of
accident due to rash and negligent driving of both
lorries leading to death of Mahantesh is not in dispute.
Tribunal assessed compensation passed award against
insurer. Insurer has not challenged the same.
Therefore, liability to pay compensation is also not in
dispute. Tribunal determined age of deceased as 28
year and his occupation as cleaner, which are also not
in dispute. Claimant is seeking enhancement.
Therefore, point that arises for consideration in this
appeal is;
"Whether claimant is entitled for
enhancement of compensation as sought
for?".
7. Though, it was asserted that deceased was
working as driver and earning Rs.3,000/- p.m. as
salary and daily bhata, there is no specific evidence to
substantiate the same. Therefore, tribunal assessed
income notionally at Rs.3,000/-. However, notional
income for the year 2004 is Rs.3,500/- as per norms
adopted by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority
for settlement of cases before Lok Adalath. Deceased
was 28 years of age and was self employed. As per
decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay
Sethi and others, reported in AIR 2017 SCC 5157,
addition of future prospectus would be 40%, deduction
towards personal expenses will be '½' and multiplier
applicable would be '17'. Hence, loss of dependency
would be:
Rs.3,500 x 40% - ½ x 12 x 17 =Rs.4,99,800/-.
8. In addition, claimant would be entitled to
Rs.40,000/- towards 'loss of parental consortium'.
Further she is entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards 'funeral
expenses' and Rs.15,000/- towards 'loss of estate'.
Since more than 3 years have lapsed, after rendering
decision in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), 10% has to be added
to award under conventional heads, i.e., 1,10,000 + 10% =
Rs.1,21,000/-. Hence, total compensation would be
Rs.6,20,800/-. Tribunal awarded interest at 8% per annum on
Rs.4,66,800/-. But, insurer has not challenged the same. In
view of decision of this Court in Shriram General Insurance
Company Ltd., Rajasthan V/s. Sri. Laxmi and others
reported in 2018(4) AKR 808, claimant would be entitled to
interest at 6% per annum on enhanced compensation. Point for
consideration is answered partly in the affirmative as above:
9. In the result, I pass following:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed.
(ii) Claimant is held entitled for compensation of
Rs.6,20,800/- as against Rs.4,66,800/- awarded
by tribunal. Claimant would be entitled to
interest at 8% on Rs.4,66,800/- and at 6% on
enhanced compensation of Rs.1,54,000/- from
the date of claim petition till deposit.
(iii) The insurer is directed to deposit compensation
within six weeks from date of receipt of a copy of
this order.
(iv) On deposit, 50% shall be kept in fixed
deposit in any Nationalised bank or Post
Office for a period of four years and
remaining 50% shall be released.
Sd/-
JUDGE
A C/ p sg *
