Karnataka High Court
Kamalabai And Ors vs Basawaraj And Ors on 7 April, 2022
Bench: Ashok S. Kinagi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
MFA No.200804/2018 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. KAMALABAI W/O CHANDRAKANT,
AGE:46 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD,
2. KASHINATH S/O CHANDRAKANT
AGE:28 YEARS, OCC:COOLIE,
3. BASAVARAJ S/O CHANDRAKANT
AGE:25 YEARS, OCC:COOLIE WORK,
4. SATISH S/O CHANDRAKANT
AGE:23 YEARS, OCC:COOLIE,
5. PRAVEEN S/O CHANDRAKANT
AGE:21 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT,
ALL ARE R/O V.K SALGAR
TQ.ALAND, DIST.GULBARGA
NOW CIB COLONY, H.NO.318
BASAVARAJ WADEKAR HOUSE
NEAR LIMBINI GARDEN
GULBARGA-585102.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI V.N MISKIN AND
SRI ANAND V. TURE, ADVOCATES)
2
AND:
1. BASAWARAJ S/O GUNDAPPA,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF VEHICLE
R/O V.K.SALGAR, TQ.ALAND
DIST.GULBARGA-585316.
2. MANJUNATH S/O MURGEPPEYAKUNDI
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF VEHICLE
R/O AGASAR GALLI, ATHANI
TQ.ATHANI, DIST BELGAUM-591212
3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER
DR.JAWALI COMPLEX, IST FLOOR
SUPER MARKET, GULBARGA-585101.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MOHD.ABDUL QUAYYUM, ADV. FOR R3;
NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF THE MV ACT PRAYING TO
ALLOW THE APPEAL BY MODIFYING THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.07.2016 PASSED BY
THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, KALABURAGI
IN MVC No.763/2013 AND CONSEQUENTLY TO ENHANCE
THE COMPENSATION FROM RS.7,52,000/- TO
RS.17,00,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 12 PER ANNUM FROM
THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
3
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellants under Section
173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act')
challenging the judgment and award dated 27.07.2016
passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Kalaburagi (for short
hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in MVC
No.763/2013 on the ground of quantum of
compensation.
2. Parties are referred to as per their ranking
before the Tribunal. Appellants are petitioners and the
respondents are the respondents before the Tribunal.
3. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal are
that on 18.01.2013 at about 3.30 p.m., on Hatyal
Karkood road, near Hatyal village, the deceased
Chandrakant and others were returning from Lord
Yellamma Temple in Cruiser Jeep bearing reg. No.KA-
23/M-8471 at that time, the driver of the vehicle driving
the vehicle in high speed and in a rash and negligent
manner and thereby, it overturned and hence, the said
Chandrakanth sustaining the grievous injuries died. The
petitioners being the legal representatives of the
deceased-Chandrakanth filed claim petition under
Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation for the
death in the road traffic accident.
4. The first and second respondent filed written
statement denying the averments made in the claim
petition and sought for dismissal of the petition.
5. The respondent No.3/Insurance Company
filed its statement of objection denying the averments
made in the claim petition and it was contended that the
deceased was the relative of the respondent No.1 and
he was not a passenger. The driver of the offending
vehicle was holding valid and effective driving licence as
on the date of the accident and the offending vehicle
was insured with respondent No.3 for personal use only
and the insurance policy does not cover the risk of the
passenger. Hence, the third respondent/Insurance
company is not liable to pay compensation to the
petitioners and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
6. The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of
the parties framed the issues and recorded the
evidence. In order to prove the case, the petitioner No.2
was examined as P.W.1 and got marked the documents
as Exs.P1 to P10. The third respondent/insurance
company examined its Administrative Officer as RW.1
and got marked the document Ex.D1.
7. The Tribunal after recording the evidence
and after considering the material on record allowed the
claim petition in part and awarded compensation of
Rs.7,52,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date of claim petition till the date of
realization and further held that the case against
respondent No.1 is dismissed and respondent Nos.2 and
3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.
8. Being dissatisfied with the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioners/appellants have
filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners
and the learned counsel for the third respondent/
Insurance company.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
is on the lower side, hence, prays to allow the appeal.
11. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for
the second respondent/Insurance company supports the
impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal
and submits that the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for
interference and prays to dismiss the appeal.
12. I have perused the records and considered
the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
parties. The point that arises for consideration is with
regard to quantum of compensation.
13. The occurrence of the accident, involvement
of the offending vehicle in the accident and death of the
deceased-Chandrakant in the accident are not in
dispute. In order to prove that the accident has
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the offending vehicle, the petitioners have
produced copy of charge sheet marked as Ex.P3.
14. Insofar as quantum of compensation is
concerned, the deceased was aged about 45 years as on
the date of accident it is the case of the petitioners that
the deceased was working as a agricultural coolie and
earning Rs.9,000/- per month. In order to substantiate
the same, the petitioners have not produced the proof of
income. In the absence of proof of income, the notional
income of the deceased will have to be taken as per the
chart provided by the Karnataka State Legal Services
Authority. In terms of the chart, for the accident of the
year 2013, the notional income of the deceased will
have to be taken at Rs. 7000/- as against Rs.4,000/-
per month taken by the Tribunal. To the aforesaid
amount, as the deceased was aged 45 years, 25% of
the said amount has to be added on account of future
prospects in view of the law laid down by the
Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of
National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay
Sethi and Others reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157.
Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.8,750/-. Out of
which, considering that there are five dependents, I
deem it appropriate to deduct 1/4th of the said income
towards personal expenses of the deceased and
therefore, the monthly income of the deceased comes to
Rs.6,563/-. Taking into account the age of the deceased
which was 45 years at the time of accident, multiplier of
14 has to be adopted as per the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC
121. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to a sum of
Rs.11,02,584/- (6563x12 X14) on account of loss of
dependency as against Rs.6,72,000/- awarded by the
Tribunal.
15. Further, in view of the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma
General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu
Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Others reported in
(2018) 18 SCC 130, each petitioner is entitled to a
sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium. The
petitioners are five in number, hence the
compensation towards loss of consortium would be
Rs.2,00,000/- (40,000 x 5). In addition, the
petitioners/appellants are entitled a sum of
Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and
Rs.15,000/- under the head of loss of estate.
16. Thus, in all, the petitioners are entitled to a
sum of Rs. 13,32,584/- as against Rs. 7,52,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal.
17. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed in part.
ii. The impugned judgment and award
dated 27.07.2016 passed by the
Tribunal in MVC No.763/2013 is
modified.
iii. The petitioners are entitled to an
enhanced compensation of
Rs.5,80,584/- along with interest at the
rate of 6% per annum from the date of
petition till the date of realization.
However, the petitioners are not
entitled to interest for the delay period
of 528 days in filing the above appeal.
iv. The third respondent/insurance
company is directed to deposit the
compensation amount before the
Tribunal within a period of eight weeks
from date of the receipt of certified
copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
JUDGE
VNR
