Karnataka High Court
Smt.Sridevi And Ors vs Ramesh And Anr on 1 February, 2022
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar, K S Hemalekha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF FEBRUARY- 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
MFA NO.201852/2018 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. Smt. Sridevi W/o Late Sanjeevkumar,
Age: 32 years, Occ: Household,
2. Rinku D/o Late Sanjeevkumar,
Age: 14 years, Occ: Student,
3. Monika D/o Late Sanjeevkumar,
Age: 12 years minor,
4. Divya D/o Late Sanjeevkumar,
Age: 10 years minor,
5. Mriya D/o Late Sanjeevkumar,
Age: 8 years Minor,
6. Wilson S/o Late Sanjeevkumar,
Age: 6 years Minor,
Appellant Nos.2 to 6 are minors and they are
under the Guardianship of their mother
Sridevi appellant No.1.
2
7. Maruti S/o Tuljappa,
Age: 52 years, Occ: Nil,
8. Rangamma W/o Maruti Sone,
Age: 50 years, Occ: Household,
R/o Village Kon Melkunda, Tq: Bhalki,
Dist: Bidar-584 101.
... Appellants
(By Sri Babu H. Metagudda, Advocate)
AND:
1. Ramesh S/o Shanker,
Age: 37 years, Occ: Business,
R/o. Village Kon Melkunda, Tq: Bhalki,
Dist: Bidar-584 101.
(Owner of Cruiser Jeep No.KA-39/0643.
2. The Manager,
Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
E-8, EPIP, RIICO Industrial Area, Sitapur,
Dist: Jaipur, State: Rajasthan-302 022.
... Respondents
(Sri. Subhash Mallapur, Advocate for R2;
Notice to R1 is dispensed with)
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, praying to call for
the records in MVC No.24/16 on the file of the II
Additional, MACT & Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Bidar, allow the appeal and modify the judgment and
award dated 24.03.2018 passed in MVC No.24/2016 by the
II Additional MACT & Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Bidar and enhance the compensation from Rs.8,13,000/-
with 6% interest to Rs.79,94,000/- with 12% interest.
3
This appeal coming on for admission this day,
K.S. Hemalekha J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
The claimants have preferred this appeal, seeking
enhancement of compensation by assailing the judgment
and award dated 24.03.2018 passed in MVC No.24/2016
by the II Addl. M.A.C.T & Additional District & Sessions
Judge, Bidar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for
short).
2. The claimants filed a claim petition under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the
Tribunal, claiming compensation of Rs.79.94 lakhs on
account of death of one Sanjeevkumar, contending that on
18.12.2015 at about 22.00 hours on Bhalki Bidar road,
when the deceased was returning to his home at Kon
Melkunda by walk and came near Siddeshwar cross, a
Cruiser Jeep bearing Reg.No.KA.39.0643 came in a rash
and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased,
due to which the deceased fell on the road and sustained
grievous injuries on the vital parts of the body and died on
the spot. The claimants are the wife, minor children and
the parents of the deceased Sanjeevkumar. The deceased
was hale and healthy and was aged about 32 years at the
time of the accident and he was doing mason work and
was earning more than Rs.1,000/- per day and also
earning around Rs.150/- per day by doing milk vending
work and thus, contended that the deceased was earning
Rs.34,500/- per month. The claimants were solely
dependent upon the deceased for their livelihood and he
was the only breadwinner of the family.
3. On issuance of notice by the Tribunal,
respondent No.1-owner of the offending vehicle and
respondent No.2-insurance company appeared and filed
their written statement.
4. Respondent No.1-owner of the vehicle denied
the occurrence of the accident and the negligence on the
part of the driver of the Cruiser Jeep bearing
Reg.No.KA.39.0643.
5. Respondent No.2 - insurance company
contended that there is no negligence on the part of the
driver of the offending vehicle and also contended that the
owner of the vehicle has violated the conditions of the
policy and the driver was not holding valid and effective
driving licence as on the date of the accident.
6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,
the Tribunal framed the following:
ISSUES
1. Whether the claimants prove that
Sanjeevkumar died in the motor vehicle
accident, that occurred on 18-12-2015 at
about 2200 hours near Siddeshwar cross
infront of land of Srimanth Talwade on
Bhalki-Bidar road on account of the rash
and negligent driving of the cruiser Jeep
bearing No.KA.39.0643 by its driver?
2. Whether the claimants prove that they are
entitled for the compensation? To what
extent and from whom?
3. What order or decree?
7. In order to substantiate their case, claimant
No.1-the wife of deceased Sanjeevkumar examined herself
as PW.1 and one witness as PW.2 and got marked Exs.P1
to P9. On the other hand, respondents did no adduce any
evidence, but got marked one document at Ex.R1.
8. On the basis of the pleadings, evidence and
material on record, the Tribunal held that the accident
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of Cruiser
Jeep bearing Reg.No.KA.39.0643 and awarded a
compensation of Rs.8,13,000/-along with interest at the
rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till
realization under the following heads:
Loss of dependency Rs.7,68,000/-
Loss of love and affection Rs.20,000/-
Transportation of dead body Rs.15,000/-
Loss of consortium for Rs.10,000/-
petitioner No.1
Total Rs.08,13,000/-
9. Being not satisfied with the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants have
preferred the present appeal.
10. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants
and learned counsel for respondent No.2-insurance
company and perused the material on record.
11. Sri Babu H. Metagudda, learned counsel for the
appellants would contend that the deceased was hale and
healthy, aged about 32 years at the time of accident and
was working as Mason and earning Rs.1,000/- per day and
also doing milk vending work and getting Rs.150/- per day
and sought to contend that the deceased was earning
Rs.34,500/- per month and that the notional income at
Rs.6,000/- per month taken by the Tribunal is much on the
lower side. The loss of dependency arrived at by the
Tribunal is by deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses,
whereas the proper deduction is 1/5th. It is specifically
contended that the Tribunal has awarded compensation
towards loss of consortium only in respect of petitioner
No.1, which is very meager and also no amount is awarded
to the other petitioners under the said head. It is also
contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
towards loss of love and affection, transportation of dead
body is much on the lower side. Thus, on all these
grounds, he seeks for enhancement of compensation.
12. Per contra Sri Subhash Mallapur, learned
counsel for respondent No.2-insurance company would
contend that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
just and proper and the manner in which the Tribunal has
assessed the compensation would not call for any
interference.
13. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties, the only point that arises for consideration in this
appeal is,
Whether the appellants are entitled for
enhanced compensation?
14. The fact that Sanjeevkumar succumbed to the
injuries sustained by him in the accident that occurred on
18.12.2015 due to the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the Cruiser Jeep bearing Reg.No.KA.39.0643 is
not in dispute. However, the controversy is with regard to
the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
15. The accident has occurred in the year 2015
and the deceased was doing Mason work and also doing
milk vending work and was earning Rs.34,500/- per month
as per the contention of the claimants. The Tribunal was
not justified in taking the notional income of the deceased
only at Rs.6,000/- per month. Even assuming that the
claimants have not produced any evidence to show the
income of the deceased, as per the guidelines of the
Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, the notional
income for the accidents occurred in the year 2015 is to be
taken at Rs.8,000/- per month. Hence, considering the
income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month, adding
40% of it i.e., Rs.3,200/- towards future prospects as per
the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National
Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and
others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, after deducting
1/5th of it i.e., Rs.2,240/- towards personal expenses of
the deceased and applying the multiplier of 16 since the
deceased was aged 35 years, the total compensation
payable towards loss of dependency would come to
Rs.17,20,320/- (Rs.8,000 + 3,200 = Rs.11,200 - Rs.2,240
= Rs.8,960 x 12 x 16).
16. In view of the dictum of the Honble Apex
Court in Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors. v.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in AIR 2020
SC 3076 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs.
Nanu Ram reported in 2018 ACJ 2782, the appellants,
who are eight in number i.e., the parents, wife and five
children of the deceased would be entitled to Rs.40,000/-
each towards loss of filial, spousal and parental
consortium. Further, the appellants are entitled to a sum
of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/-
towards funeral and obsequies ceremony.
17. Thereby the appellants are entitled for total
compensation under various heads as under:
1. Towards loss of dependency Rs.17,20,320/-
2. Towards loss of filial, spousal Rs.3,20,000/-
and parental consortium
(Rs.40,000 x 8)
3. Towards loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
4. Towards funeral and obsequies Rs.15,000/-
ceremony
Total Rs.20,70,320/-
18. The Tribunal has already awarded
compensation of Rs.8,13,000/-. Hence, after deducting the
same, the appellants are entitled for enhanced
compensation of Rs.12,57,320/- (Rs.20,70,320/- less
Rs.8,13,000/-) with interest at 6% per annum from the
date of petition till realization.
19. In view of the same, the point raised for
consideration is answered in the affirmative.
20. In the result, we pass the following
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed in part.
ii) The judgment and award dated 24.03.2018
passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.24/2016
is hereby modified.
iii) The appellants/claimants are entitled for
enhanced compensation of Rs.12,57,320/- with
interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till
realization.
iv) The apportionment, deposit and release of the
enhanced compensation would be as per the
award of the Tribunal.
v) Respondent No.2-insurance company shall
deposit the compensation amount with
updated interest within a period of four weeks
from the date of receipt of a certified copy of
this judgment.
vi) Parties to bear their respective costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SMP/LG
