Karnataka High Court
Smt. Renuka W/O. Nagappa ... vs Shri. Nazirpasha M. Khatib on 13 December, 2021
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13 T H DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
M.F.A.No.100718/2017(MV)
BETWEEN:
1 . SMT. RENUKA
W/O NAGAPPA KALGA GGARI ,
AGE: 38 YEARS , OCC: HOUS E HOLD ,
R/O: AMATUR,
TAL: BAILHONGA L, DIST: BELAGAVI .
2 . KUMAR SHIVANAND
S/O NAGAPPA KALGA GGARI ,
AGE: 20 YEARS , OCC: STUD ENT,
R/O: AMATUR,
TAL: BAILHONGA L, DIST: BELAGAVI .
3 . KUMAR KIRAN
S/O NAGAPPA KALGA GGARI ,
AGE: 16 YEARS , OCC: STUDENT ,
R/O: AMATUR,
TAL: BAILHONGA L, DIST: BELAGAVI .
SINCE A PPELLANT NO-3 IS MINOR
RPTD. BY M/G MOTHER A PPELLANT NO-1
SMT. RENUKA
W/O NAGA PPA KALGAGGARI ,
AGE: 38 YEARS , OCC: HOUS E HOLD ,
R/O: AMATUR,
TAL: BAILHONGA L, DIST: BELAGAVI .
4 . SMT. RUDRAWWA
2
W/O BHIMARAYAPPA KALGA GGARI,
AGE: 71 YEARS , OCC: HOUS EHOLD,
R/O: AMATUR, PIN -591112,
TAL: BAILHONGA L, DIST: BELAGAVI .
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.HANAMAN T R. LATUR, ADVOCATE)
AND
1 . SHRI. NA ZIRPASHA M. KHATIB,
AGE: 59 YEARS , OCC: BUSINESS ,
R/O: LOT N O-887, R.C. NAGAR,
2 N D STAGE, NEAR S.B.I, BELAGAVI .
PIN-590003, T Q A ND DIST: BELAGA VI.
2 . THE MANAGER LEGAL,
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
GE PLAZA , AIR PORT ROAD , YERWAD A,
PUNE- 411006, THROUGH ITS BRANCH OFFI CE,
CLUB ROAD , BELA GAVI-590001.
3 . KUMAR RAVI S/ O NAGAPPA KALGAGGARI,
AGE: 18 YEARS , OCC: STUD ENT,
R/O: AMATUR, PIN -591112,
TQ: BAILHONGA L, DIST: BELA GAVI.
... RES PONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAM P. GHORPAD E ADV OCA TE FOR R1)
(BY MISS.ANUSHA , F OR SRI . S.K .KA YAKAMATH, FOR R2)
(R3 N OTICE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MISC. FIRS T APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTI ON
173(1) OF MOT OR VEHICLES A CT, 1988, PRAYING TO
ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD PAS SED BY SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AN D ADDL.
M.A.C.T, BAILHONGAL, IN MVC No.2421/ 2013 DATED
28.11.2016, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
3
THIS APPEA L COM ING ON FOR ORD ERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT , D ELIVERED THE F OLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 28.11.2016
passed by Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Bailhongal
(for short, 'the Tribunal') in MVC No.2421/2013, this
appeal is filed by claimant seeking for enhancement of
compensation.
2. Brief facts as stated are that in an accident that
occurred on 16.06.2013, Nagappa Bhimarayappa
Kalgaggari who was riding motorcycle bearing registration
no.KA-22/EC-4049, sustained fatal injuries and died when
Maruti Ritz Car bearing registration No.KA-22/6198
dashed against it due to rash and negligent driving by its
driver. Claiming compensation for same, wife, three
minor children and mother of deceased filed claim petition
against owner/insurer of Maruti Ritz car.
3. On service of notice respondents no.1 and 2 filed
separate objections. Respondent no.1 denied occurrence
of accident and contended that accident occurred on
account of negligence of motorcyclist i.e., deceased
himself. Respondents no.1 denied that deceased died on
account of accidental injuries, so also age, occupation and
income of the deceased. Respondent no.1 admitted that
the car was insured with respondent no.2.
4. Respondent no.2, admitted issuance of insurance
policy subject to terms and conditions. It contended that
the driver of Maruti car was not having valid and effective
driving licence at the time of accident. It further
contended that compensation claimed was exorbitant and
prayed for dismissal of claim petition.
5. Based on pleadings, tribunal framed issues and on
consideration after recording evidence, it held that
accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of
car by its driver. It determined age of deceased at 40
years and his occupation as watchman. Though, monthly
income of deceased was claimed at Rs.24,000/-, tribunal
considered it on notional basis at Rs.7,000/-, deducted
1/4 t h towards personal expenses and applying multiplier of
'15', awarded compensation of Rs.9,45,000/- towards 'loss
of dependency'. It also awarded sum of Rs.2,50,000/-
under conventional heads, thereby awarding total
compensation of Rs.11,95,000/-. Not satisfied with
quantum of compensation, claimants are in appeal.
6. Sri. Hanumant R Latur, learned counsel for claimants
submitted that on limited ground regarding income of
deceased and addition of future prospects, claimants have
seeking enhancement of compensation.
7. It was submitted that deceased was holding
agricultural land to an extent of 1 acre and also working
round the clock and was being paid Rs.500/- per day as
mason and Rs.300/- per night as watchman. However,
Tribunal, considered notional monthly income and
awarded meager compensation. It was also submitted
that Tribunal failed to add future prospects.
8. On the other hand, Miss Anusha, advocate for
Sri.S.K.Kayakmath counsel for respondent/insurer opposes
the appeal and supported award.
9. From above submissions, occurrence of accident and
death of Nagaraj in said accident is not in dispute. Age of
deceased as '40' years and his occupation are also not in
dispute. Claimants are seeking for enhancement of
compensation. Therefore, point that arise for
consideration is
"Whether claimants are entitled for
enhancement of compensation as sought for?
10. It is not in dispute that deceased was 40 years age,
working as mason. Though claimants stated that monthly
income of deceased is Rs.24,000/- from employment and
Rs.1,00,000/- per annum from agriculture. On perusal of
Ex. P17 to P.23 - record of rights, it is seen that he was
owning only one acre of land. Though, he has produced
Ex.P.16 issued by Chandrakanth M.Managutii, employer
certifying that deceased was being paid Rs.24,000/- per
month as salary, author of said document has not been
examined. No other corroborative records are produced.
The accident occurred during the year 2013. Notional
income for said period is Rs.7,000/-. Therefore, Tribunal
would be justified in taking income of deceased at
Rs.7,000/- p.m.. Claimants are wife, three minor children
and mother i.e. five dependants. Deceased was '40' years
of age 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 SC 5157, '25%' of income has to
be added towards future prospects and ' ¼' has to be
deducted towards personal expenses. Multiplier applicable
would be '15'. Therefore, loss of dependency would be:
Rs.7000/- + 25% - ¼ X 12 X 15= Rs.11,81,250-00
Apart from above, claimant no.1 would be entitled for
Rs.40,000/- towards loss of 'spousal consortium';
Claimant nos. 2 to 4 are entitled for loss of 'parental
consortium' of Rs.40,000/- each and claimant no.5 would
be entitled for Rs.40,000/- towards loss of 'filial
consortium'. In addition, they would be entitled for
Rs.15,000/- towards 'loss of estate' and Rs.15,000/-
towards 'funeral expenses'.
11. They would also be entitled for addition of 10% to
award under conventional heads, since more than three
years have lapsed, after rendering of decision in Pranay
Sethi's(supra). Total compensation would be
Rs.11,81,250/- towards loss of dependency +
Rs.2,53,000/- under conventional heads. Hence, claimants
are entitled for total compensation of Rs.14,34,250/-.
Point for consideration is answered partly in affirmative.
12. In the result, I pass following:
ORDER
Appeal is allowed in part.
Compensation of Rs.11,95,000/- awarded
by Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.14,34,250/-.
Claimants are entitled for interest at the
rate of 6% per annum on enhanced
compensation from the date of petition till
deposit.
Respondent/insurer is directed to deposit
enhanced compensation within six weeks from
date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Directions issued by Tribunal regarding
apportionment, proportion of deposit and
release shall be applied to enhanced
compensation also.
Sd/-
JUDGE
H MB
