Karnataka High Court
Mahadevi W/O. Siddanagouda ... vs Rudrappa Parappa Manoli on 20 December, 2021
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE DAY OF 20TH DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI
M.F.A.NO. 24041 of 2013 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. MAHADEVI,W/O. SIDDANAGOUDA NINGANAGOUDRA,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOOLD,
R/O. KATKOL, TQ: RAMDURG, DIST: BELGAUM ,
NOW AT: ASHOK NAGAR, BELGAUM
2. KUMARI SHOBHA
D/O. SIDDANAGOUDA NINGANAGOUDRA,
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. KATKOL, TQ: RAMDURG, DIST: BELGAUM
NOW AT: ASHOK NAGAR, BELGAUM
3. KUMARI SARASWATI
D/O. SIDDANAGOUDA NINGANAGOUDRA
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. KATKOL, TQ: RAMDURG, DIST: BELGAUM
NOW AT: ASHOK NAGAR, BELGAUM
4. KUMARI SAVITRI
D/O. SIDDANAGOUDA NINGANAGOUDRA
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT
R/O. KATKOL, TQ: RAMDURG, DIST: BELGAUM
NOW AT: ASHOK NAGAR, BELGAUM
5. KUMAR SHIVANAGOUDA
S/O. SIDDANAGOUDA NINGANAGOUDRA
AGE: 22YEARS, OCC: STUDENT
R/O. KATKOL, TQ: RAMDURG, DIST: BELGAUM
NOW AT: ASHOK NAGAR, BELGAUM ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. ASHOK A. NAIK, ADVOCATE.)
2
AND:
1. RUDRAPPA PARAPPA MANOLI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O. KATKOL, TQ: RAMADURGA,
DIST: BELGAUM
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD
THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE
CLUB ROAD, BELGAUM
.... RESPONDENTS
(R1 NOTICE SERVED)
(BY SRI.S.S.KOLIWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 31.07.2008 PASSED IN MVC No.3198/2006 ON THE FILE
OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) AND MEMBER, MACT, BELGAUM,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 31.07.2008, passed
by Prl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & MACT, Belgaum, (hereinafter referred
to as 'Tribunal') in MVC No.3198/2006, claimants are in appeal
seeking enhancement.
2. Though this matter is listed for admission, with consent, it
is taken up for final disposal.
3. Brief facts as stated are that on 02.11.2006,
Siddanagouda was waiting for bus at Aratgal cross on Katkol -
Ramdurg road, at 3.00 p.m., when rider of motor cycle bearing
registration no.KA-24/H-8191 riding it in rash and negligent manner
and dashed to Siddanagouda, causing grievous injuries. Despite
being admitted to hospital, he died during treatment on
06.11.2006. Alleging loss of dependency due to his untimely death,
his wife and children filed claim petition against owner and insurer
of motorcycle under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988.
4. On service of summons, respondents opposed same
denying age, occupation and income of deceased as well as
dependency of claimant. Negligence of rider of motorcycle was
denied. Though, issuance of insurance policy with regard to
offending motorcycle was admitted, violation of terms and
conditions of policy was alleged.
5. Based on pleading tribunal framed issues. Claimant no.1
was examined as PW1. Exhibits Ex.P.1 to 7 were marked. No oral
evidence was led by respondents. But copy of insurance policy was
marked with consent as Ex.R.1.
6. On consideration, tribunal answered issues in favour of
claimant. It held that accident due to rash and negligence of rider
of motorcycle. It determined age of deceased based on school
records as 49 years and his occupation as agriculturist. It
considered monthly income of deceased as Rs.6,500/-, deducted
'1/3' towards personal expenses and applying multiplier '12'
awarded 6,33,600/- towards 'loss of dependency' Rs.10,000/-
towards medical expenses and Rs.25,000/- under conventional
heads. It directed respondent no.2 to deposit same with 6%
interest per annum. Not satisfied with quantum of compensation
claimant is in appeal.
7. Sri Ashok A Naik, learned counsel for claimant-appellant
submitted that award passed by tribunal was inadequate. It was
submitted that though deceased was 49 years of age, an
agriculturist holding 17 acres of land in his name and also 33 acres
stood in the name of his father, he being only son earning more
than Rs.3,00,000/- per annum, tribunal considered meager monthly
income of Rs.6,500/- which requires enhancement. It was further
submitted that claimants were wife and four children i.e., five
dependants. However, tribunal erroneously deducted '1/3' towards
personal expenses and failed to add future prospects. Even award
under conventional heads was inadequate.
8. On the other hand, Sri S.S. Koliwad, learned counsel for
respondent - insurer supported the award and opposed
enhancement. It was submitted that claimant nos.2 was 21 years of
age, while claimant no.3 was 19 years of age had attained age of
majority and were not dependant on the deceased, therefore,
personal expenses was justified. It was further submitted that as
agricultural lands would remain with claimants, loss of income on
that count would not be occasioned.
9. From the above submissions, occurrence of accident due to
rash and negligence of rider of motorcycle, leading to death of
Siddanagouda in the said accident is not in dispute. Issuance of
insurance policy and its validity as on date of accident is also not in
dispute. Tribunal determined age of deceased as 49 years and
occupation as agriculturist and passed award holding insurer liable
to pay same. Insurer has not challenged same. Therefore, liability
of insurer is also not in dispute. Claimants are seeking
enhancement of compensation. The only point that arises for
consideration is :
"Whether claimants are entitled for
enhancement of compensation as sought
for?"
10. Admittedly, deceased was an agriculturist, aged 49
years. Though, his annual income was claimed Rs.3,00,000/- from
agriculture, except producing record of rights - Ex.P.8 to P.17, no
other evidence was led to substantiate income. Under the
circumstances, tribunal assessed income on notional basis.
Accident occurred on 02.11.2006. Notional income of an ordinary
coolie would be Rs.3,750/-. It is on record that deceased was the
only son. From Ex.P.8 to P.17, an extent of 17 acres of land stood
in his name, apart from 33 acres standing in the name of his father.
In view of the same, determination of his monthly income at
Rs.6,500/- would be inadequate. In the opinion of this Court, it
would be appropriate to take his income at Rs.7,500/-. Deceased
was self-employed. Claimants are wife, three daughters and son.
Though, claimant no.2 and 3 attained age of majority, they are
unmarried and non-earning. Therefore, they have treated as
dependents. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of National Insurance Co., Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi &
Others reported in AIR 2017 Supreme Court 5157, there has to
be an addition of 25% towards future prospects, deduction towards
personal expenses would be '1/4' and multiplier applicable would be
'13'. Thus, loss of dependency would be Rs.7,500 +25% -1/4 X 121
X 13 = 10,96,875/-. In addition, claimant no.1 would be entitled to
Rs.40,000/- towards spousal consortium, claimants nos.2 to 5
would be entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards parental consortium.
They would also 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 of decision in Pranay
Sethi's case (supra), there has to be addition of 10% to award
under conventional heads i.e., Rs.2,30,000/- + 10% =
Rs.2,53,000/-.
11. In all, claimants would be entitled to total compensation
of Rs.13,49,875/- rounded off to Rs.13,50,000/-. Point for
consideration is answered partly in affirmative as above.
12. In the result, I pass following:
ORDER
Appeal is allowed in part with costs.
Claimants are held entitled for enhanced
compensation of Rs.13,50,000/- as against
Rs.6,68,600/-awarded by tribunal.
Claimants would be entitled to interest at
6% per annum from date of claim petition till
deposit excluding delay of 1805 days.
Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced
compensation within six weeks from date of
receipt of a certified copy of this order.
The directions issued by tribunal regarding
apportionment, deposit and release would apply
to enhanced compensation also proportionately.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Psg*
