Karnataka High Court
Smt. Savitha vs Dr. Kishan Sullia on 15 January, 2021
Author: S.Sujatha And M.I.Arun
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
M.F.A.No.8085/2019 (MV)
BETWEEN :
SMT.SAVITHA
W/O DEVANNA NAYAK,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT KAJEMOOLEE HOUSE,
PERAJE VILLAGE, MADIKERI TALUK
KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 201. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI RAJARAM SOORYAMBAIL, ADV.)
AND :
1. Dr. KISHAN SULLIA
S/O LATE SHIVASHANKAR NAYAK,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/AT 4C, CRESENT MANNER
BALMATTA NEW ROAD,
MANGALORE, D.K. DISTRICT - 575 001.
2. THE PARTNER OF SANTHATHI
SANTHATHI CENTRE, MAIN ROAD,
UPPER BENDOOR,
MANGALORE, D.K. - 575 001.
3. THE MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE, SALDANA BUILDING
BRIDGE ROAD, BALMATTA,
-2-
MANGALORE, D.K. - 575 001
POLICY NO:0708033112P303569047
VALID FROM 31.03.2013 TO 30.03.2014
4. SMT.JYOTHI M.,
W/O LATE UDAYA KUMAR
@ UDAYKUMAR BHAT,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT 'ANUGRAHA' MARIKE HOUSE,
ARYAPUR VILLAGE & POST
PUTTUR TALUK, D.K. - 575 001. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.L.ACHARYA, ADV. FOR R-1 & R-2;
SRI B.A.RAMAKRISHNA, ADV. FOR R-3;
SRI JEEVAN K., ADV. FOR R-4.)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
29.06.2019 PASSED IN MVC No.1010/2014 ON THE FILE OF
THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AND
MEMBER, MACT, PUTTUR, D.K., AWARDING COMPENSATION
OF Rs.14,59,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 7% P.A.
FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
S. SUJATHA, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal by the mother of the deceased Udaya
Kumar @ Udaykumar Bhat is directed against the
judgment and award dated 29.6.2019 passed in MVC
No.1010/2014 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil
Judge & JMFC, & Member, MACT, Puttur, D.K.
[Tribunal for short].
2. The claimant, widow of the deceased
instituted the petition under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the death
of Udaya Kumar @ Udaykumar Bhat in the road traffic
accident.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their status before the Tribunal.
4. It was averred in the claim petition that
deceased Udaya Kumar was working as a priest
(Archak) at Monthimaru Durga Parameshwari Temple,
Machi of Bantwal Taluk, D.K. On 13.12.2013 at about
12.10 a.m. while he was proceeding in Toyota Kirloskar
Qualis bearing Reg.No.KA-19-P-1276 from Gokarna to
Manchi, the driver of the said quails vehicle on NH-66 at
Trasi Beach, Maravanthe, Trasi Village, Kundapur
Taluk, Udupi District, has driven the vehicle in high
speed, rash and negligent manner owing to which he
lost control and dashed to right side rear portion of the
lorry which was proceeding ahead. Due to the said
impact, the said Toyota qualis was capsized and went
towards wrong side, dashed against stone barricade put
on the right side of the road resulting in the accident.
The driver of the said vehicle in order to avoid his
liability, filed a false complaint before the police by
blaming the lorry driver. The deceased sustained
grievous multiple injuries and immediately he was
shifted to Government hospital, Kundapur, Udupi
District, where the doctor declared him as brought
dead.
5. It was contended that the deceased was
aged about 38 years and he was earning Rs.25,000/-
per month as a priest. He was contributing the same to
the family. The claimants were totally depending on his
income to lead their life. On these set of facts and
grounds, the claimants sought for compensation.
6. On service of notice, respondents appeared
through their respective counsel. Respondent Nos.3
and 4 have filed their written statement through their
learned counsel. Respondent No.3 denying the petition
averments contended that the accident has occurred
due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
lorry. The primary defence taken was that the driver of
the Toyota Kirloskar quails did not possess valid and
effective driving licence at the time of the accident; the
driver of the lorry is guilty of contributory negligence.
7. The respondent No.4/appellant herein,
denying the petition averments contended that after the
death of the deceased, the claimant has remarried and
she is employed, working at Saraswathi Co-operative
Bank, Puttur. She is not a dependent on the deceased.
It was contended that before the accident respondent
No.4 was living with the deceased and she was
dependent on her deceased son. As such, she is entitled
for the compensation.
8. On the basis of the pleadings, issues were
framed and answered allowing the petition in part
awarding compensation of Rs.14,59,000/- with interest
@ 7% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization,
apportioning the compensation amount with interest to
the extent of 80% to the claimant and 20% to the
respondent No.4.
9. Being aggrieved, respondent No.4 -mother of
the deceased has preferred the present appeal
challenging the quantum of compensation and
apportionment of the award amount.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that pursuant to the death of the deceased, the
claimant-widow of the deceased had preferred the claim
petition. Subsequently, she got remarried and is now
living with her second husband. She is not a
dependent on the deceased since she is a earning
member doing job at Saraswathi Co-operative Bank,
Puttur. The Tribunal grossly erred in apportioning 80%
to the claimant-widow of the deceased and 20% to the
appellant-mother. Learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that the appellant is equally entitled with the
widow of the deceased for compensation with interest
awarded.
11. Learned counsel for the respondent No.4
herein, made an endeavour to justify the impugned
judgment and award. It was submitted that the
remarriage of the widow of the deceased would not
disentitle her from claiming compensation. What is
relevant is the dependency as on the date of the
accident. The Tribunal after analysing these aspects has
rightly apportioned 80% of the award amount in favour
of the claimant-widow of the deceased and the same
deserves to be confirmed by this Court.
12. We have carefully considered the rival
submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the
parties and perused the original records.
13. We have examined the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The same
being just and proper, there is no scope for further
enhancement. Accordingly, we confirm the same.
14. The moot question that arises for our
consideration is:
Whether the Tribunal was right in apportioning the
award amount in the ratio of 80:20 to the widow
and the mother of the deceased respectively?
15. The remarriage of the widow of the deceased
is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the
claimant-widow of the deceased is now working and a
earning member. The appellant-mother is aged about 60
years and is a non earning member. Having regard to
these aspects, we deem it appropriate to apportion the
award amount equally between the mother and the
widow of the deceased in the ratio of 50:50.
Hence, the following:
ORDER
i] Appeal is allowed in part.
ii] The quantum of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is confirmed.
However, the apportionment of the
compensation amount with interest awarded
by the Tribunal is modified.
iii] The appellant as well as the
respondent No.4 shall be entitled to
compensation of Rs.14,59,000/- with
interest at 7% p.a., from the date of the
petition till its realization recoverable from
the respondent No.3 in the ratio of 50:50.
iv] The liability and disbursement shall be
in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal.
- 10 -
v] Draw modified award accordingly.
vi] All the pending I.As, if any, stand
disposed of accordingly.
SD/-
JUDGE
SD/-
JUDGE
Dvr:
