Karnataka High Court
Vinodabai W/O Vithal Pai vs The Managing Director on 4 December, 2021
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 04 T H DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
M.F.A.No.25552/2012 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1 . SMT.VINODABAI W /O VITHAL PAI,
AGE: 70 YEARS , OCC: HOUS EHOLD,
2 . SRI.SADANAND VI THAL PAI,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
OCC: PI GMY COLLECTOR,
BOTH ARE R/AT JA WKAR COM POUND
NEAR GURUMATH, KAJUBAG, KARWA R.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.T .M.NADA F, ADV OCATE)
AND
1 . THE MANAGING DI RECTOR,
KADAMBA TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD.,
REGISTERED OWN ER OF BUS N O.GA- 01/X- 0168,
R/O.PANJIM, GOA STATE.
2 . MANOJ NAGESH RANE,
AGE: MAJOR, R/O. KANASAGIRI,
SADASHIVGAD, KA RWAR.
3 . THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
JAGANATH BUILDI NG,
NEAR RAILWAY ST ATION, MARGOA .
... RES PONDENTS
(BY SRI.VINOD S .PAWAR, ADVOCAT E FOR R1)
(BY SMT.PREETI S HASHANK, ADV OCATE FOR R3)
(R2 -SERV ED WIT H NOTICE )
2
THIS MISC.FIRST APPEAL IS FI LED UNDER S ECT ION
173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR
THE RECORDS IN M.V.C.N O.44/2010 ON THE FI LE OF THE I
ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T. KARWAR AND TO ENHANCE
COMPENSATION A WARDED ON 15.11.2011, IN M.V .C. NO.
44/ 2010 ON THE F ILE OF I ADDITIONAL M.A .C.T.KARW AR.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT , D ELIV ERED THE F OLLOW ING:
JUDGMENT
Challenging the judgment and award dated
15.11.2011 passed by I Addl. Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, At Karwar (for short, 'the Tribunal') in MVC
No.44/2010, this appeal is filed by the
appellants/claimants for enhancement of compensation.
2. Though this appeal is listed for admission, with
the consent of learned counsel for parties, it is taken up
for final disposal.
3. Sri.T.M.Nadaf, learned counsel for claimants
submitted that in an accident that occurred on 06.01.2002
between motorcycle on which deceased Surendra Vittal Pai
was traveling and bus bearing registration no.GA-01/X
0168 belonging to respondent no.1 herein due to rash and
negligent driving of bus by its driver Surendra Vital Pai,
he sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to them during
treatment. Claiming compensation on account of his
untimely death, his mother and brother filed claim petition
under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act against owner of
bus.
4. Respondent no.1 opposed claim petition denying
accident and negligence of its bus driver, apart from
denying age, occupation and monthly income of deceased
as well as dependency. It also alleged contributory
negligence against deceased.
5. Based on pleadings, tribunal framed issues.
Thereafter, claimant no.2 was examined as PW1 and
another witness as PW.2. Exhibit P1 to P6 were marked.
On respondents' side, no evidence was led. Copy of
insurance policy is marked as Exhibit R1.
6. On consideration, Tribunal held that accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of bus by its
driver. It determined age of deceased as 32 years and his
income at Rs.4,000/- per month and by applying multiplier
of 5 corresponding to age of claimant no.1, awarded
compensation of Rs.1,30,000/- with 6% interest and held
respondent no.1 liable to pay same. Not satisfied with
quantum of compensation, claimants are in appeal.
7. It was submitted that Tribunal erred in taking
meager monthly income of Rs.4,000/- even though,
deceased was working as LIC agent and was also a
licensed stamp vendor which was substantiated by
producing certificate issued by LIC, Karwar branch and
letter issued by DTO as per Exs. P.5 and P.6. It was also
submitted that Tribunal erred in not adding future
prospects, not applying proper multiplier of 16 and
awarding inadequate compensation under conventional
heads.
8. On the other hand, Sri.Vinod Pawar, learned
counsel for respondent no.1 supported award and opposed
the appeal. It was submitted that claimant no.2 was a
major and non-dependant brother. Tribunal by taking note
of same had passed appropriate award and no
enhancement was called for.
9. From above submission, occurrence of accident
resulting in death of Surendra Vital Pai due to rash and
negligent driving of bus driver is not in dispute. Tribunal
assessed compensation and respondent no.1 is held liable
to pay the same. Respondent no.1 has not filed appeal
against said finding. Therefore, liability of respondent
no.1 is also not in dispute. Tribunal determined age of
deceased at 32 years and his occupation as stamp vendor
and LIC agent which are also not in dispute. Claimants are
seeking for enhancement of compensation. Therefore,
point that arise for consideration is
"Whethe r, claimants are entitled fo r
enhance ment o f co mpensation as sought fo r?"
10. From Exs.P.5 and P.6, it is seen that claimant
was a licensed stamp vendor and also LIC agent.
However, said documents do not indicate monthly income
of deceased. Accident occurred on 06.01.2002, notional
income for said period is Rs.3250/- per month for an
ordinary coolie. As deceased was a licensed stamp vendor
and also LIC agent, it would be appropriate to consider his
monthly income at Rs.5,000/-. Tribunal would not be
justified in taking it at Rs.4,000/-. Claimants are mother
and brother of deceased. Deceased was self-employed
below 40 years. As per decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Pranay Sethi and others, reported in AIR 2017
Supreme Court 5157, '40%' has to be added to income
towards future prospects, deduction towards personal
expenses has to be at '½' , multiplier applicable would be
16. Therefore, loss of dependency would be
Rs.5,000/- + 40% -1/2 X 12 X 16= Rs.6,72,000/-.
11. Apart from same, claimants would be entitled
for award of Rs.70,000/- under conventional heads. As
more than three years have lapsed, after rendering of
decision in Pranay Sethi's case (Supra), claimants are
entitled to addition of 10% to award under conventional
heads i.e Rs.7,000/-. Thus, total compensation would be
Rs.7,49,000/-.
12. Point for consideration is answered partly in
affirmative as above.
13. In the result, I pass following:
ORDER
Appeal is allowed.
Compensation is enhanced from
Rs.1,30,000/- to Rs.7,49,000/- with interest
at 6% per annum from date of petition till
deposit.
Respondent no.1 is directed to deposit
enhanced compensation with interest within
three months.
It is held that entire enhanced
compensation would be payable to claimant
no.1/mother. On deposit, 70% of
compensation will be kept in fixed deposit for
period of three years initially. Remaining
30% is ordered to be released in favour of
claimant no.1 on proper identification.
Claimant no.1 is at liberty to withdraw
periodical interest.
Sd/-
JUDGE
H MB
