The Divisional Manager vs Tippanna S/O Basappa Hagaragund ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1571 Kant

                                  1



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   KALABURAGI BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

                            PRESENT

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

                                 AND

       THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA


                 M.F.A. NO.200897/2017 (MV)

BETWEEN:

The Divisional Manager
New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
S.S. Front Road, Vijaypura
                                              ... Appellant

(By Sri S.S.Aspalli, Advocate)

AND:

1.     Tippanna S/o Basappa
       Hagaragund
       Age: 42 years, Occ: Coolie

2.     Yallaling S/o Tippanna
       Hagaragund
       Age: 18 years, Minor
       Occ: Student

3.     Bhagyashri D/o Tippanna
       Hagaragund
       Age: 16 years, Minor
       Occ: Student
                                    2



4.     Somashekhar S/o Tippanna
       Hagaragund
       Age: 14 years, Minor
       Occ: Student
       Petitioners No.3 to 4 are Minors
       U/g of their natural father i.e., petitioner No.1
       All are R/o Jalapur, Tq. Muddebihal-586101

5.     Mallikarjun S/o Mahadev Araladinni
       Age: 42 years, Occ: Business
       R/o At post: Nidagundi T
       Tq. Basavan Bagewadi, Dist. Vijaypur-586102

                                                           ... Respondents

(By Sri Harshavardhan R. Malipatil, Advocate for R1 to R4;
 Notice to R5 is dispensed with vide order dated 22.11.2017)

       This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173
(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, praying to call for the records and set
aside the judgment and award dated 14.03.2017 in MVC
No.26/2015 passed by the Senior Civil Judge & MACT-VIII
Muddebihal, by allowing the above appeal.

       This appeal      coming on      for final hearing this        day,
S.R.Krishna Kumar J., delivered the following:

                             JUDGMENT

This appeal by the Insurance Company is directed

against the impugned judgment and award dated 14.03.2017

passed in MVC No.26/2015 by the Senior Civil Judge and

MACT-VIII, Muddebihal (for short the 'Tribunal'), whereby the

claim petition filed by respondent Nos.1 to 4 seeking

compensation on account of death of one Smt. Nandamma

alias Nandavva W/o Tippanna Hagaragund in a fatal road

traffic accident that occurred on 13.01.2015 was allowed by

the Tribunal.

2. Heard learned counsel for the Insurance

Company and learned counsel for the claimants and perused

the material on record.

3. Though several contentions have been urged by

both sides in support of their respective claims, the preliminary

ground on which the impugned judgment and award passed

by the Tribunal is assailed by the Insurance Company is that

the Tribunal committed an error in awarding 50% towards

future prospects instead of 40% which is contrary to the

decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Sarla

Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in

(2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company

Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in

(2017) 16 SCC 680. It is therefore contended that the

impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal

deserves to be modified by taking future prospects as 40%

instead of 50% as wrongly taken by the Tribunal.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents -

claimants submits that though the future prospects is to be

taken as 40% and not 50%, the Tribunal committed an error in

taking notional income of the deceased who was a coolie as

Rs.6,120/- instead of Rs.8,000/- as per the Lok Adalath

guidelines since the accident occurred in the year 2015. It is

therefore contended that even assuming that the future

prospects is reduced from 50% to 40%, the increase in

notional income would effectively balance and set off the

compensation paid by taking higher future prospects and

consequently the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is

just, fair, proper and reasonable and the same does not

warrant interference by this Court in the present appeal.

5. We have given our anxious consideration to the

rival submissions and perused the material on record.

6. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for

the claimants, though the future prospects is to be taken as

40% instead of 50% which was taken by the Tribunal, as held

by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Sarla Verma and

Pranay Sethi (supra), the said increase of 10% would be

sufficiently balanced and set off by taking the notional income

of the deceased as Rs.8,000/- as per the Lok Adalath

guidelines since the accident occurred in the year 2015

instead of Rs.6,120/- taken by the Tribunal, we are therefore

of the considered opinion that quantum of compensation

awarded by the Tribunal is just, fair, proper and reasonable

and in the peculiar/special facts and circumstances of the

present case and in order to do substantive justice by invoking

our power under Order XLI Rule 33 CPC, we are of the view

that the impugned judgment and award passed by the

Tribunal does not warrant interference by this Court in the

present appeal. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the

appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed confirming the

impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

7. In the result, we pass the following:

ORDER

The appeal is hereby dismissed. The impugned

judgment and award dated 14.03.2017 passed in MVC

No.26/2015 by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT-VIII,

Muddebihal is hereby confirmed.

The amount in deposit, if any, is directed to be

transferred to the Tribunal for disbursement.

The Registry is directed to transmit the trial court

records to the Tribunal forthwith to enable disbursement of the

amount.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE swk