Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Renukamma W/O. Virupaxappa ... on 1 April, 2022
Bench: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF APRIL, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
M.F.A. NO.101064 OF 2022 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR,
ARIHANT PLAZA, KUSUGAL ROAD,
HUBBALLI - 580 021,
THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NAGANGOUDA R.KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. RENUKAMMA W/O.VIRUPAXAPPA BAILPATTAR,
AGE 55 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
2. SRI. KRISHNA S/O.VIRUPAXAPPA BAILPATTAR,
AGE 33 YEARS, OCC. GOLDSMITH,
3. KUMAR AMARESH S/O.VIRUPAXAPPA BAILPATTAR,
AGE 27 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
Digitally
signed by J
MAMATHA 4. KUMARI GEETA D/O.VIRUPAXAPPA BAILPATTAR,
J Location:
MAMATHA Dharwad
Date:
AGE 29 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
2022.04.05
10:43:53
R/O.: PAHADI PARAGAON VILLAGE,
+0530
5. KUMARI JAYASHRI D/O. VIRUPAXAPPA BAILPATTAR,\
AGE 25 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
6. KUMARI NIRMALA D/O.VIRUPAXAPPA BAILPATTAR,
AGE 23 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
7. SRI. SHYAMSUNDAR S/O.CHIDANANDAPPA BAILPATTAR,
AGE 58 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS
-2-
MFA No. 101064 of 2022
ALL RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 7 ARE
R/O.: TAWARGERE, TQ.: KUSHTAGI,
DIST.: KOPPAL-583201
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.C. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO R6;
NOTICE TO R7 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.01.2021
PASSED IN MVC NO.30/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KUSTAGI,
AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.14,66,660/- WITH INTEREST AT 6
PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. Notice to respondent No.7 is dispensed with
at the risk of the appellant - Insurance Company .
2. This appeal is preferred by the appellant -
Insurer challenging the Judgment and Award passed
Tribunal on the ground that there was evidence
ind icating that the claimant was himself driving the
vehicle, whereas it has been contended by the
claimant that he was a p illion rider.
3. An argument is also advanced that the
deduction made to the extent of 1/5 t h of the salary
MFA No. 101064 of 2022
was incorrect and the salary assessed was also on the
hig her side.
4. As far as the argument that the claimant
was actually riding the motorcycle and was not the
pillion rider, the entire reliance for this contention is
that an entry is made in the MLC extract, which is to
the effect that the deceased had suffered a fall from
the motorcycle.
5. The Tribunal has taken note of the fact that
as per Ex .R4, when the deceased was admitted to the
hosp ital, he was unconscious and therefore this entry
could not be relied upon to come to the conclusion
that he was himself riding the motorcycle. It has also
been noticed that a charge sheet had been laid ag ainst
the owner cum rider of the motorcycle and this also
ind icated that the deceased was not rid ing the
motorcycle. In my view, this finding of the Tribunal
cannot be found fault with and is therefore confirmed.
6. However, as regards the compensation, the
Tribunal has noticed that the deceased was stated to
MFA No. 101064 of 2022
be the Goldsmith and earning an income of Rs.9,000/-
per month.
7. Learned counsel submits that since there
was no documentary evidence, the income determined
by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority would
have to be adopted. In my view, the Tribunal on
consideration of the totality of the circumstances has
arrived at the conclusion that the deceased was
earning a sum of Rs.9,000/- per month. It is to be
stated here that the claimant has five children and this
by itself ind icates that the income i.e., normally
adopted in respect of the persons who hav e no
evidence to indicate their income cannot be
automatically applied. Hav ing regard to the size of the
family of the deceased, the assessment of Rs.9,000/-
per month as monthly income of the deceased cannot
be found fault with and the same is confirmed.
8. The annual income of the deceased would be
Rs.1,08,000/- (R s.9,000/- x 12).
MFA No. 101064 of 2022
9. The Tribunal has wrongly added 15% to the
income towards future prospects. As per the ruling of
the Hon'b le Supreme Court in the case of National
Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi
reported in (2017) 16 SCC 618, 10% is required to be
added to the income of the deceased, since the
deceased was aged about 53 years as on the date of
accident. The annual income of the deceased would
thus be Rs.1,18,000/- (Rs .1,08,000/- + 10%).
10. Further, the Tribunal has committed an error
in deducting 1/5 t h towards personal expenses of the
deceased when there were six dependents. In my
view, the Tribunal oug ht to have deducted 1/4 t h
towards personal expenses of the deceased. Thus, the
total income of the deceased after deducting 1/4 t h
towards personal expenses would be Rs.89,100/-
(Rs .1,18,000/- - 1 /4 t h ).
11. The Tribunal has adopted appropriate
multiplier of 11 to calculate the loss of dependency.
Thus, the claimants would be entitled to
MFA No. 101064 of 2022
compensation of Rs.9,80,100/- (Rs.89,100/- x 11)
towards loss of dependency instead of Rs.10,92,960/-
awarded by the Tribunal.
12. The compensation awarded by the Trib unal
under other head s are just and proper and the same is
confirmed.
13. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to the
following compensation:
1. Loss of dependency Rs.9,80,100/-
2. Loss of spouse consortium Rs.40,000/-
3. Loss of parental consortium each Rs.80,000/-
to petitioner Nos.2 & 3 (s o ns )
4. Loss of parental consortium each Rs.1,20,000/-
to petitioner Nos.4 to 6 (d a ug ht ers )
5. Transportation of dead body Rs.5,000/-
6. For funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
7. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
8. Medical expenses Rs.1,18,700/-
TOTAL Rs.13,73,800/-
14. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the
appellant - Insurance Company is allowed in p art and
the Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal is
modified.
15. The claimants would be entitled to a total
compensation of Rs.13,73,800/- instead of
MFA No. 101064 of 2022
Rs.14,86,660/- as awarded by the Tribunal along with
interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date petition
till its relasisation.
16. The appellant - Insurance C ompany is
directed to deposit the entire compensation amount
along with interest, exclud ing the amount in deposit, if
any, before the Tribunal within a period of six weeks
from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
order.
17. The order of apportionment and deposit ordered by
the Tribunal shall hold good for the compensation awarded in
this appeal.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Vnp*
