Karnataka High Court
The Managing Director vs Smt.Gangavva W/O Ahokk Nidasoshi on 8 December, 2021
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI
M.F.A.NO.100700/2016 (MV)
C/W.
M.F.A.NO.100521/2016 (MV)
IN MFA NO.100700/2016
BETWEEN
1 . SMT.GANGAWWA
W/O ASHOK NIDASOSHI,
AGE: 48 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: BAMBALWAD,
TAL: CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
2 . MISS.LAXMI D/O ASHOK NIDASOSHI
AGE: 30 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: BAMBALWAD,
TAL: CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
3 . MAHESH S/O ASHOK NIDASOSHI
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O: BAMBALWAD,
TAL: CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANTS.
(BY SHRI RAJENDRA R. PATIL, ADVOCATE.)
2
AND:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
N.W.K.R.T.C., REP. BY ITS
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
N.W.K.R.T.C., CHIKODI DIVISION,
CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. THE DIVISIONAL GENERAL MANAGER,
THE INTERNAL INSURANCE FUND,
N.W.K.S.R.T.C., K.H.H. DOUBLE ROAD,
CENTRAL OFFICE, SHANTI NAGAR,
BENGALURU,
THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
N.W.K.S.R.T.C., CHIKODI DIVISION,
CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS.
(BY SHRI I C PATIL, ADVOCATE)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO
MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 6.11.2015 PASSED IN
MVC NO.1604/2014, ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
ADDL. MACT, CHIKODI, BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION, ETC.,.
IN MFA NO.100521/2016
BETWEEN:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
N.W.K.R.T.C.,
R/BY THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
N.W.K.R.T.C.,
CHIKKODI DIVN, DIST: BELAGAVI.
REP. BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER,
N.W.K.R.T.C., HUBBALLI.
3
2. THE DIVISIONAL GENERAL MANAGER,
THE INTERNAL INSURANCE FUND,
N.W.K.R.T.C.,
KHH DOUBLE ROAD, CENTRAL OFFICE,
SHANTI NAGAR, BENGALURU,
THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLER,
N.W.K.R.T.C., CHIKKODI DIVN., CHIKKODI.
REP. BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER,
N.W.K.R.T.C., HUBBALLI.
...APPELLANTS.
(BY SHRI I C PATIL, ADVOCATE.)
AND:
1 . SMT.GANGAVVA
W/O AHOKK NIDASOSHI,
MADAR, AGE: 46 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: BAMBALWAD,
TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
2 . MISS. LAXMI D/O ASHOK NIDASOSHI,
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: BAMBALWAD,
TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
3 . MAHESH S/O ASHOK NIDASOSHI,
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O: BAMBALWAD,
TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS.
(BY SHRI RAJENDRA R PATIL, ADVOCATE.)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO SET
4
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 6.11.2015, PASSED IN
MVC NO.1604/2014, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
ADDL. MACT, CHIKKODI, ETC.,.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Though these appeals are listed for admission, with
consent of learned counsel for parties, heard on merits and
taken up for disposal.
2. These appeals are filed challenging judgment and
award dated 6.11.2015, passed by the Senior Civil Judge and
Addl. MACT, Chikkodi, in MVC No.1604/2014.
3. Brief facts as stated are that, in an accident that
occurred on 18.4.2014 at about 9.45 a.m., Ashok Mallappa
Nidasoshi, rider of bicycle died when a NWKRTC bus bearing
registration no.KA-23/F-787 driven in a rash and negligent
manner dashed against bicycle. Alleging loss of dependency
due to his untimely death, his wife and children filed claim
petition against NWKRTC under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988.
4. On contest, tribunal held that accident had occurred
due to rash and negligent driving of bus by its driver. It
determined age of deceased at the time of death as 50 years.
His income as Rs.7,000/- per month and applying multiplier of
13, awarded compensation of Rs.7,28,052/- towards loss of
dependency. Tribunal added a sum of Rs.3,25,000/- under
conventional heads and granted total compensation of
Rs.10,53,100/- with interest at 9% p.a. Aggrieved by the
award, NWKRTC is in appeal in MFA No.100521/2016
challenging the finding of tribunal on quantum, while claimant
has also filed appeal in MFA No.100700/2016 seeking for
enhancement of compensation.
5. Shri I.C.Patil, learned counsel for NWKRTC
submitted that award passed by tribunal was excessive and
exorbitant when compared to the facts of case and evidence on
record. It was submitted that though claimants no.2 and 3 were
major, and only claimant no.1 wife was dependent on the
income of deceased, without any evidence tribunal held
claimants no.2 and 3 as dependents and deducted 1/3rd towards
personal expenses. Learned counsel further submitted that
award of compensation under conventional heads was also
excessive and not in terms of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court
in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi
and others, reported in (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases
680. Learned counsel lastly submitted that award of interest at
9% was excessive and contrary to decision of this Court in
Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., Rajasthan v.
Smt. Laxmi and others, reported in 2018(4) AKR 808.
6. On the other hand, Shri Rajendra R. Patil, learned
counsel for claimants submitted that award passed by tribunal
was inadequate and sought for enhancement. It was submitted
that though claimants had stated that income of deceased was
Rs.2,00,000/- per annum, tribunal had considered his monthly
income at Rs.7,000/- which was on lower side. Learned counsel
further submitted that there was no addition of future prospects
to the income of deceased. On these grounds learned counsel
for claimants is seeking enhancement of compensation and
dismissal of appeal by NWKRTC.
7. From above submission occurrence of accident due
to rash and negligent driving of bus by its driver and death of
Ashok Mallappa Nidasoshi in the said accident are not in dispute.
Tribunal has passed award assessing compensation against the
corporation. Corporation is challenging the award on quantum.
Therefore liability of corporation to pay compensation is also not
in dispute. Tribunal determined age of deceased as 50 years
and occupation as agriculturist, which is also not in dispute.
8. From above submission, only point that arises for
consideration is:
"Whether compensation awarded by tribunal
requires modification as sought for?"
9. In order to establish income, claimants have
produced record of rights of the lands held by deceased as per
Ex.P.13 and P.14. Apart from land holding, deceased was
working with contractor Mahendra B. Khurbate. Certificate
issued by the said contractor produced as Ex.P.10 indicates that
deceased was being paid Rs.300/- per day as mason. However
absolutely no other documents are produced to corroborate the
claim that he was working as a mason. The author of Ex.P.10
was also not examined. Therefore, tribunal disbelieved the
same. There are no reasons to interfere. Record of rights in
respect of Sy.No.92 indicate that it is irrigated from the well and
extent of land holding of deceased was 2 acres 13 guntas.
Therefore income of deceased has to be assessed as an
agriculturist. Admittedly lands have remained with claimants.
Therefore, assessment of income of deceased will have to be on
notional basis. Notional income for the year 2014 is Rs.7,500/.
Tribunal has assessed income of deceased at Rs.7,000/- per
month which would be unsustainable. It has to be taken as
Rs.7,500/-.
10. Further, in his deposition PW.1 stated that claimant
no.2 his sister and daughter of deceased remained unmarried.
Though corporation has denied the same and made suggestions
to the contrary, witness has denied the same. There is no
evidence to establish whether she has in fact remained
unmarried. Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd towards personal
expenses. As deceased was a married person residing in rural
area and having wife and children, deduction of 1/3rd towards
personal expenses would be justified. Tribunal has however not
added future prospects to income of deceased which would be
contrary to decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi
case (supra). Considering age of deceased at 50 years,
addition towards future prospects would be at 10%. Therefore
loss of dependency would be Rs.7,500/- + 10% minus 1/3rd x
12 x 13 = Rs.8,58,000/-.
11. Claimants are wife, son and daughter of deceased.
Claimant No.1 would be entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards loss of
spousal consortium. Claimants no.2 and 3 are entitled for
Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of parental consortium. In
addition they would be entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards funeral
expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. Since more
than three years have lapsed after rendering the decision in
Pranay Sethi case (supra), 10% has to be added towards
award under conventional heads i.e., a sum of Rs.15,000/-.
Thus, claimants would be entitled for compensation under the
conventional heads at Rs.1,65,000/- (40,000 x 3 + 15,000 +
15,000 + 15,000). Thus, claimants would be entitled to a total
compensation of Rs.10,23,000/-. Hence, compensation is
reduced from Rs.10,53,100/- to Rs.10,23,000/-.
12. Further, tribunal has awarded rate of interest at 9%
which is without any justification or reasoning. In view of
decision of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Shriram
General Insurance Company Ltd. (supra), rate of interest
awarded by tribunal requires to be reduced from 9% to
6% p.a. Point for consideration is answered partly in affirmative
as above.
13. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) Appeal in MFA No.100700/2016 filed by
claimants is dismissed.
ii) Appeal in MFA No.100521/2016 filed by
insurer is allowed in part.
iii) Judgment and award dated 6.11.2015,
passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Addl.
MACT, Chikkodi, in MVC No.1604/2014 is
modified. Compensation is reduced from
Rs.10,53,100/- to Rs.10,23,000/- with
interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition
till the date of realization.
iv) Amount in deposit in MFA No.100521/2016 is
ordered to be transmitted to tribunal for
payment. NWKRTC shall deposit balance
compensation before tribunal within a period
of three months from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this judgment.
v) The directions issued by tribunal regarding
apportionment, deposit and release would
apply to reassessed compensation
proportionately. Except that, compensation
apportioned in favour of claimant no.3 son is
ordered to be released in his favour.
vi) Liberty is reserved to claimant no.2 to seek
for release of compensation apportioned in
her favour in case it is required for marriage
purposes.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Mrk/-
