Karnataka High Court
Nagini W/O. Umesh Halabhavi vs The Divisional Controller on 6 December, 2021
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 06 T H DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
M.F.A.No.20164/2012 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1 . SMT.NAGINI
W/O UMESH HALABHAVI,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
2 . KUMARI SHRUTI
D/O. UMESH HALABHAVI
AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT,
MINOR REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL
MOTHER APPELLANT NO.1
3 . KUMARI JYOTI
D/O. UMESH HALABHAVI,
AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT,
MINOR REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL
MOTHER APPELLANTNO.1
4 . KUMAR ROHIT
S/O UMESH HALABHAVI,
AGED ABOUT 08 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
APPELLANTS NO.2-4 ARE MINORS
2
REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL
MOTHER, APPELLANT NO.1
ALL ARE R/O. SHIRGAON,
TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELGUAM.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. VAISHALI KALADAGI ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.SHIVAKUMAR S. BADAWADAGI, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
MAHARASTRA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
KOLHAPUR DIVISION, KOLHAPUR.
MAHARASTRA.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.C.V.ANGADI, ADVOCATE)
THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO THIS
HON'BLE COURT BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE ABOVE
APPEAL AND CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO MODIFY THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.02.2010 PASSED BY
THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE AND
MACT, BELGAUM AT BELGAUM, INMVC NO.1602/2009, BY
AWARDING A SUM OF RS.8,00,000/- WITH 12% INTEREST
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
JUDGMENT
Challenging the judgment and award dated
06.02.2010 passed by V Addl. District and Sessions Judge
and MACT, Belgaum (for short, 'the Tribunal') in MVC
No.1602/2009, this appeal is filed by the claimant seeking
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. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that in
an accident that occurred on 20.09.2004, between a bus
belonging to MSRTC bearing registration no.MH-
12/UA/8312 driven by it's driver in rash and negligent
manner and tanker, Umesh, driver of tanker sustained
fatal injuries and died. As on date of accident, he was 36
years of age working as tanker driver and earning more
than Rs.6,000/- per month. Claiming compensation on
account of his untimely death, his wife and three minor
children filed claim petition against MSRTC under Section
166 of Motor Vehicles Act.
4. On contest, Tribunal held that accident occurred
due to sole rash and negligent driving of bus driver. It
determined age of deceased at 39 years and occupation as
driver by taking his monthly income notionally at
Rs.5,000/-, deducting '1/3' towards personal expenses
and applying multiplier of '16', Tribunal awarded
compensation of Rs.6,33,000/- towards loss of
dependency. Rs.25000/- towards consortium, Rs.5,000/-
towards funeral expenses and Rs.15000/- towards loss of
estate. Not satisfied with quantum of compensation,
claimants are in appeal.
5. Miss. Vyshali Kaladagi, advocate appearing for
Sri.Shivakumar S. Badavadagi learned counsel for
claimants/appellants submitted that Tribunal erred in
taking meager monthly income of deceased and even
though there were four dependants, erred in deducting
'1/3' towards personal expenses and failed to add future
prospects. It was further submitted that even award
under conventional head was inadequate and sough for
enhancement.
6. On the other hand, Sri.C.V.Angadi learned
counsel for respondents supported the award and opposed
enhancement of compensation.
7. Itwais submitted that claimants are claiming
income of deceased as Rs.6,000/-, but prodcing salary
certificate - ExP.8 and examined Devaraj, a clerk in office
of employer of deceased as PW2,to establish his income.
But, PW.2 admitted that he was deposing without looking
into any records. Therefore, monthly income of deceased
was not established and Tribunal was justified in taking
notional monthly income. Learned counsel further
submitted that though Tribunal determined age of
deceased as '36' years, it erroneously applied multiplier of
'16' instead of correct multiplier of '15' and submitted
that compensation requires to be reduced.
8. From above submissions, occurrence of accident
due to rash and negligent driving of bus, death of Umesh
in the said accident, liability of MSRTC to pay
compensation is not in dispute. The age, occupation
determined by Tribunal is also not in dispute. Only point
that arose for consideration is
"Whether claimants are entitled for
enhancement of compensation as sought
for?"
9. Admittedly, deceased was 36 years old and his
occupation was tanker - driver. Copy of driving licence
was produced as Ex.P.7. Though, claimants stated that
salary of deceased was Rs.6,000/- + Rs.50/- daily batta,
evidence of PW2 was not satisfactory. But, deceased was
holding heavy goods vehicle licence, merely on the ground
that PW.2 did not refer to records of employment, would
not be a ground to refuse to consider income of deceased.
A lorry driver cannot be stated to be earning less than
Rs.7,000/-. Hence, same is taken as monthly income of
deceased.
10. Claimants are wife and three minor children.
Deceased was 36 years old and 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 Supreme Court 5157
there has to be an addition of future prospects at 40%,
deduction towards personal expenses at ¼ and multiplier
applicable would be '15'. Therefore, loss of future earning
would be: Rs.7,000 + 40% - ¼ X 12 X 15=
Rs.13,23,000/-.
11. In addition claimants no.1 would be entitled for
Rs.40,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium, claimant
nos.2 to 4 would be entitled to loss of filial consortium of
Rs.40,000/- each. They are also entitled for Rs.15,000/-
towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of
estate. Since, more than 3 years have lapsed from date of
decision in case of Pranay Sethi, there has to be an
addition of 10% to income of deceased under
conventional heads
i.e. Rs.1,90,000 + 10% =Rs.2,09,000/-
Thus, claimants would be entitled to total
compensation of Rs.15,32,000/- . Point for consideration
is answered partly in affirmative as above.
12. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
Appeal is allowed in part.
Compensation enhanced from
Rs.6,78,600/- to Rs.15,32,000/- with interest at
6% per annum from date of claim petition till
deposit.
Respondent is directed to deposit
enhanced compensation within three months
from date of receipt of certified copy.
Directions issued by Tribunal insofar as
apportionment, deposit and release would apply
to enhanced compensation also.
Sd/-
JUDGE
H MB
