Karnataka High Court
Lalitabai And Ors vs Sreeyapureddy Venkata And Anr on 4 December, 2021
Bench: R.Devdas, Rajendra Badamikar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.200467/2020 (MV)
C/w
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.200468/2020 (MV)
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.200469/2020 (MV)
IN MFA No.200467/2020:
BETWEEN:
1. Lalitabai W/o Ramu Chavana
Age: 24 Years, Occ: Household
2. Vijay S/o Tuljaram Chavan
Age: 37 Years, Occ: Coolie, Now nil
3. Jayarama S/o Tuljaram Chavan
Age: 24 Years, Occ: Coolie Now nil
4. Kavita W/o Lesu
Age: 37 Years, Occ: Household
5. Sakkaubai W/o Babu Rathod
Age: 34 years, Occ: Household
All are R/o Village Avoor Dodda Tanda
Tq. Shorapur, Dist. Yadgir
... Appellants
(By Sri Sidramreddy Venkanna Paraddy, Advocate)
2
AND:
1. Sreeyapureddy Venkata
Sudhakar Reddy S/o Sreeyapureddy
Venkata Reddy, Age: 38 Years
Occ: Business
R/o Chinnayagaripalle Mydukuru
Settivaripalle Mydukur YSR Kadapa
State Andhra Pradesh
(Owner of the Lorry bearing No.AP-04-UB-0430)
2. The Divisional Manager
The New India Assurance Company Ltd.
Sangameswara Nagar, Brhampur
SB Temple Road, Kalaburagi
(Insurer of offending Lorry No.AP-04-UB-0430)
... Respondents
(By Sri Nagaraj Patil, Advocate for R1;
Sri Rahul R. Asture, Advocate for R2)
This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, praying to allow the above appeal and award
compensation of `15,74,000/- along with interest at 12%
p.a. by modifying the judgment and award dated 03.09.2019
passed by the Senior Civil Judge & MACT at Shorapur in
MVC No.316/2018.
IN MFA No.200468/2020:
BETWEEN:
1. Heeribai W/o Sitharam Rathod
Age: 52 Years, Occ: Household
2. Sitharam S/o Sevu Rathod
Age: 57 Years, Occ: Coolie, Now nil
3
3. Tippanna S/o Sitharam Rathod
Age: 34 Years, Occ: Coolie Now nil
4. Chandu S/o Sitharam Rathod
Age: 32 Years, Occ: Coolie Now nil
5. Nandu S/o Sitharam Rathod
Age: 27 years, Occ: Coolie, Now nil
All are R/o Village Avoor Dodda Tanda
Tq. Shorapur, Dist. Yadgir-585 220
... Appellants
(By Sri Sidramreddy Venkanna Paraddy, Advocate)
AND:
1. Sreeyapureddy Venkata
Sudhakar Reddy S/o Sreeyapureddy
Venkata Reddy, Age: 38 Years
Occ: Business
R/o Chinnayagaripalle Mydukuru
Settivaripalle Mydukur YSR Kadapa
State, Andhra Pradesh
(Owner of the Lorry bearing No.AP-04-UB-0430)
2. The Divisional Manager
The New India Assurance Company Ltd.
Sangameshwara Nagar, Brhampur
SB Temple Road, Kalaburagi-585102
(Insurer of offending Lorry No.AP-04-UB-0430)
... Respondents
(By Sri Nagaraj Patil, Advocate for R1;
Sri Rahul R. Asture, Advocate for R2)
This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, praying to allow the above appeal and award
compensation of `15,26,000/- along with interest at 12%
p.a. by modifying the judgment and award dated 03.09.2019
4
passed by the Senior Civil Judge & MACT at Shorapur in
MVC No.315/2018.
IN MFA No.200469/2020:
BETWEEN:
1. Baddu S/o Manu Chavan
Age: 47 Years, Occ: Agriculture & Coolie
2. Kashibai W/o Baddu Chavan
Age: 45 Years, Occ: Household
3. Kishan S/o Baddu Chavan
Age: 27 Years, Occ: Coolie
All are R/o Village Avoor Dodda Tanda
Tq. Shorapur, Dist. Yadgir-585 220
... Appellants
(By Sri Sidramreddy Venkanna Paraddy, Advocate)
AND:
1. Sreeyapureddy Venkata
Sudhakar Reddy S/o Sreeyapureddy
Venkata Reddy, Age: 38 Years
Occ: Business
R/o Chinnayagaripalle Mydukuru
Settivaripalle Mydukur YSR Kadapa
State, Andhra Pradesh
(Owner of the Lorry bearing No.AP-04-UB-0430)
2. The Divisional Manager
The New India Assurance Company Ltd.
Sangameshwara Nagar, Brhampur
SB Temple Road, Kalaburagi-585102
(Insurer of offending Lorry No.AP-04-UB-0430)
... Respondents
(By Sri Nagaraj Patil, Advocate for R1;
Sri Rahul R. Asture, Advocate for R2)
5
This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, praying to allow the above appeal and award
compensation of `25,26,000/- along with interest at 12%
p.a. by modifying the judgment and award dated 03.09.2019
passed by the Senior Civil Judge & MACT at Shorapur in
MVC No.314/2018.
These appeals coming on for Admission, this day,
Rajendra Badamikar J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
The appellants/claimants have filed these appeals
under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
challenging the quantum and award passed by the
Tribunal in MVC Nos.316/2018, 315/2018 and
314/2018.
2. The brief factual matrix leading to the case
are that; on 03.05.2018 at about 10.00 a.m., deceased
by name Ramu S/o Tulajaram Chavan, deceased
Navaneetha @ Naveen S/o Baddu Chavan and deceased
Anil S/o Sitaram Rathod were proceeding for
distribution of marriage card and when they were
proceeding towards Avoor on Sindagi-Shahapur main
road near Veerarayappa field on Hero Passion Pro
motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-33/R-3427, a lorry
bearing Reg.No.AP-04-UB-0430 came from the opposite
direction driven by its driver in a rash and negligent
manner as well as in a high speed and dashed against
the motor cycle, as a result, all the three riders
sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to the injuries.
The legal heirs of the deceased persons filed claim
petitions seeking compensation.
3. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of
`9,26,000/-, `9,74,000/- and `9,74,000/- respectively
in all the three claim petitions by fastening the liability
on the Insurance Company holding that the accident in
question was because of actionable negligence of driver
of offending lorry. This finding is not challenged by the
Insurance Company. Hence, now the matter is
restricted only in respect of enhancement.
In MFA No.200467/2020 (MVC No.316/2018):
4. It is asserted that the deceased Ramu was
earning `15,000/- per month and the appellants are
dependants on him hence the claim petition was filed.
The respondent - Insurance Company has disputed the
liability on various grounds including age, occupation
and income of the deceased.
5. The Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and
documentary evidence, has held that the claimants are
entitled for total compensation of `9,26,000/- under
various heads as under:
1. Loss of dependency `8,16,000/-
2. Love and filial affection `1,00,000/-
3. Funeral expenses and `10,000/-
transportation charges
Total `9,26,000/-
6. Being aggrieved by this award the claimants
have filed this appeal. The learned counsel for the
appellants would contend that the Tribunal has erred in
taking the notional income of `8,000/- per month rather
than `11,750/- as per Lok Adalath chart in the absence
of any other material documents. He would also
contend that the Tribunal is also not justified in
deducting half of the income of the deceased and the
Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/3rd since the
deceased had left behind his widow being his dependant
along with other claimants. Hence, he would contend
that the award is on lower side and sought for
enhancement.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
- Insurance Company would support the award passed
by the Tribunal.
8. Having heard the arguments and perusing the
records, it is evident that the Tribunal has taken the
notional income of `8,000/- per month though there is
an assertion that the income of the deceased was
`15,000/-. But in the absence of material evidence, the
Tribunal ought to have taken monthly income at
`11,750/- as per Lok Adalath chart and Tribunal has
erred in taking monthly income of `8,000/-. As per
postmortem report and inquest mahazar Exs.P-5 and P-
6 the age of the deceased was 26 years and hence the
Tribunal has rightly taken multiplier '17'. However, the
Tribunal has deducted 50% of the income of the
deceased on the ground that the deceased was a
bachelor but PW-1 i.e. claimant No.1 Lalita Bai is the
widow of the deceased and while other claimants are
brothers and widow of the brother. But they cannot be
termed as dependants. Since appellant No.1/claimant
No.1 is the widow and the deceased was a married
person, the Tribunal has erred in deducting 50% of the
income of the deceased treating him to be a bachelor
and considering one dependant Tribunal ought to have
deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses. Hence, the
loss of dependency would work out to `11,750 + 40%
towards future prospects which works out to `4,700/-.
The total income would be `11,750 + `4,700 =
`16,450/-. If 1/3rd of this income is deducted towards
personal expenses of the deceased, the deceased would
have contributed `10,967/- towards the family. Hence,
the compensation under the head of loss of dependency
would be `10,967 x 12 x 17 = `22,37,268/-.
9. There is only one dependant of the deceased
and hence under the head of loss of consortium
appellant No.1/claimant No.1 is entitled for `40,000/-.
Further, under the head of funeral expenses and loss of
estate appellant No.1/claimant No.1 is entitled for
`15,000/- each. Hence, appellant No.1/claimant No.1
is entitled for total compensation under various heads
as under:
1. Loss of dependency `22,37,268/-
2. Loss of consortium `40,000/-
3. Funeral expenses and `15,000/-
transportation charges
4. Loss of estate `15,000/-
Total `23,07,268/-
10. Since appellant Nos.2 to 5 are not dependants
and in the absence of any material evidence showing
that they were depending on deceased, they cannot be
termed as dependants and are not entitled for any
compensation. Hence, it is only appellant No.1/
claimant No.1 who is entitled for entire compensation.
The Tribunal has awarded `9,26,000/- which is on the
lower side.
In MFA No.200468/2020 (MVC No.315/2018):
11. It is asserted that the deceased Anil was
earning `15,000/- per month and the appellants are
dependants on him hence the claim petition was filed.
The respondent - Insurance Company has disputed the
liability on various grounds including age, occupation
and income of the deceased.
12. The Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and
documentary evidence, has held that the claimants are
entitled for total compensation of `9,74,000/- under
various heads as under:
1. Loss of dependency `8,64,000/-
2. Love and filial affection `1,00,000/-
3. Funeral expenses and `10,000/-
transportation charges
Total `9,74,000/-
13. Being aggrieved by this award the claimants
have filed this appeal. The learned counsel for the
appellants would contend that the Tribunal has erred in
taking the notional income of `8,000/- per month rather
than `11,750/- as per Lok Adalath chart in the absence
of any other material documents. Hence, he would
contend that the award is on lower side and sought for
enhancement.
14. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
- Insurance Company would support the award passed
by the Tribunal.
15. Having heard the arguments and perusing the
records, it is evident that the Tribunal has taken the
notional income of `8,000/- per month though there is
an assertion that the income of the deceased was
`15,000/-. But in the absence of material evidence, the
Tribunal ought to have taken monthly income at
`11,750/- as per Lok Adalath chart and Tribunal has
erred in taking monthly income of `8,000/-. As per
postmortem report and inquest mahazar Exs.P-5 and P-
6 the age of the deceased was 23 years and hence the
Tribunal has rightly taken multiplier '18'. Since the
deceased Anil was bachelor, the Tribunal has rightly
deducted 50% of the income of the deceased towards his
personal expenses. Hence, the loss of dependency
would work out to `11,750 + 40% towards future
prospects which works out to `4,700/-. The total
income would be `11,750 + `4,700 = `16,450/-. If 50%
of this income is deducted towards personal expenses of
the deceased, the deceased would have contributed
`8,225/- towards the family. Hence, the compensation
under the head of loss of dependency would be `8,225 x
12 x 18 = `17,76,600/-.
16. There are two dependants of the deceased and
hence under the head of loss of consortium appellant
Nos.1 and 2/claimant Nos.1 and 2 are entitled for
`40,000/- each. Further, under the head of funeral
expenses and loss of estate appellant Nos.1 and 2 are
entitled for `15,000/- each. Hence, appellant Nos.1 and
2 are entitled for total compensation under various
heads as under:
1. Loss of dependency `17,76,600/-
2. Loss of consortium `80,000/-
3. Funeral expenses and `15,000/-
transportation charges
4. Loss of estate `15,000/-
Total `18,86,600/-
17. Since the appellant Nos.3 to 5 are not
dependants and in the absence of any material evidence
showing that they were depending on deceased, they
cannot be termed as dependants and are not entitled for
any compensation. Hence, it is only appellant Nos.1
and 2/claimant Nos.1 and 2 who are entitled for entire
compensation. The Tribunal has awarded `9,74,000/-
which is on the lower side.
In MFA No.200469/2020 (MVC No.314/2018):
18. It is asserted that the deceased Navaneetha @
Naveen S/o Baddu Chavan was earning `15,000/- per
month and the appellants are dependants on him hence
the claim petition was filed. The respondent -
Insurance Company has disputed the liability on
various grounds including age, occupation and income
of the deceased.
19. The Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and
documentary evidence, has held that the claimants are
entitled for total compensation of `9,74,000/- under
various heads as under:
1. Loss of dependency `8,64,000/-
2. Love and filial affection `1,00,000/-
3. Funeral expenses and `10,000/-
transportation charges
Total `9,74,000/-
20. Being aggrieved by this award the claimants
have filed this appeal. The learned counsel for the
appellants would contend that the Tribunal has erred in
taking the notional income of `8,000/- per month rather
than `11,750/- as per Lok Adalath chart in the absence
of any other material documents. Hence, he would
contend that the award is on lower side and sought for
enhancement.
21. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
- Insurance Company would support the award passed
by the Tribunal.
22. Having heard the arguments and perusing the
records, it is evident that the Tribunal has taken the
notional income of `8,000/- per month though there is
an assertion that the income of the deceased was
`15,000/-. But in the absence of material evidence, the
Tribunal ought to have taken monthly income at
`11,750/- as per Lok Adalath chart and Tribunal has
erred in taking monthly income of `8,000/-. As per
postmortem report and inquest mahazar Exs.P-5 and P-
6 the age of the deceased was 25 years and hence the
Tribunal has rightly taken multiplier '18'. Since the
deceased Navaneetha @ Naveen was bachelor, the
Tribunal has rightly deducted 50% of the income of the
deceased towards his personal expenses. Hence, the
loss of dependency would work out to `11,750 + 40%
towards future prospects which works out to `4,700/-.
The total income would be `11,750 + `4,700 =
`16,450/-. If 50% of this income is deducted towards
personal expenses of the deceased, the deceased would
have contributed `8,225/- towards the family. Hence,
the compensation under the head of loss of dependency
would be `8,225 x 12 x 18 = `17,76,600/-.
23. There are two dependants of the deceased and
hence under the head of loss of consortium appellant
Nos.1 and 2/claimant Nos.1 and 2 are entitled for
`40,000/- each. Further, under the head of funeral
expenses and loss of estate appellant Nos.1 and 2 are
entitled for `15,000/- each. Hence, appellant Nos.1 and
2 are entitled for total compensation under various
heads as under:
1. Loss of dependency `17,76,600/-
2. Loss of consortium `80,000/-
3. Funeral expenses and `15,000/-
transportation charges
4. Loss of estate `15,000/-
Total `18,86,600/-
24. Since appellant No.3 is not dependant and in
the absence of any material evidence showing that he
was depending on deceased, he cannot be termed as
dependant and is not entitled for any compensation.
Hence, it is only appellant Nos.1 and 2/claimant Nos.1
and 2 who are entitled for entire compensation. The
Tribunal has awarded `9,74,000/- which is on the lower
side.
25. Hence, the appeals need to be allowed in part.
Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(1) MFA No.200467/2020 is allowed in part.
Appellant No.1/claimant No.1 is entitled for a total
compensation of `23,07,268/- as against
`9,26,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The
enhanced compensation of `13,81,268/- shall
carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from
the date of petition till realization. Appellant
No.1/Claimant No.1 being the widow of the
deceased is entitled for entire compensation and
the deposit as well as disbursement shall be as
per the order of the Tribunal.
(2) MFA No.200468/2020 is allowed in part.
Appellant Nos.1 and 2/claimant Nos.1 and 2 are
entitled for a total compensation of `18,86,600/-
as against `9,74,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
The enhanced compensation of `9,12,600/- shall
carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from
the date of petition till realization. Appellant
Nos.1 and 2/Claimant Nos.1 and 2 being the
parents of the deceased are entitled for
compensation in the ratio of 70% : 30% and the
deposit as well as disbursement shall be as per
the order of the Tribunal.
(3) MFA No.200469/2020 is allowed in part.
Appellant Nos.1 and 2/claimant Nos.1 and 2 are
entitled for a total compensation of `18,86,600/-
as against `9,74,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
The enhanced compensation of `9,12,600/- shall
carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from
the date of petition till realization. Appellant
Nos.1 and 2/Claimant Nos.1 and 2 being the
parents of the deceased are entitled for
compensation in the ratio of 30% : 70% and the
deposit as well as disbursement shall be as per
the order of the Tribunal.
(4) It is made clear that appellants/ claimants in
all the three appeals are not entitled for interest
for the delayed period of 100 days in filing the
appeal.
(5) The Insurance Company shall deposit the
enhanced compensation within eight weeks from
the date of receipt of certified copy of this
judgment.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
BL/swk
