Karnataka High Court
Smt. Rathna W/O. Sharanappa ... vs Veerayya S/O. Channabasayya ... on 4 February, 2022
Bench: S.Sunil Dutt Byssdyj, Rvhj
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI
REVIEW PETITION NO.100058 OF 2021
IN
M.F.A. NO.103174 OF 2019
C/W
M.F.A.103531 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
SMT.RATHNA
W/O SHRANAPPA NILOGAL
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE
R/O NEAR KATTI DURUGAMMA TEMPLE
KUSHTAGI
NOW: R/O. KEREHALLI
TQ: YELBURGA
PIN-583 237.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SANTHOSH NARAGUND, ADV., FOR
SRI. D.V. DATTAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. VEERAYYA
S/O CHANNABASAYYA HIREMATH
AGE: MAJOR
OCC: DRIVER OF NEKRTC
BUS BEARING NO.KA-37/F-0487
R/O TAVARAGERA
TQ: KUSTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL
PIN: 583 231.
2
2. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
NEKRTC, KOPPAL DIVISION
KOPPAL, PIN-583 231.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.C.BHUTI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE
1 R/W SECTION 114 OF THE CPC PRAYING TO REVIEW THE
JUDGMENT PASSED IN MFA NO.103174/2019 C/W MFA
NO.103531/2019 DATED 23.12.2020.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
SITTING AT PRINCIPAL BENCH AT BENGALURU, RAVI V.
HOSMANI J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Sri Santhosh Naragund, learned counsel for
Sri D.V. Pattar, learned advocate for petitioner and Sri S.C.Bhuti,
learned counsel for respondent no.2.
2. This review petition is filed by petitioner against
impugned judgment and award dated 23.12.2020 passed by this
Court in MFA No.103531/2019 c/w MFA No.101374/2019. The
appeals arose out the judgment and award dated 18.06.2019
passed by Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and Addl. MACT, Koppal, in MVC
No.114/2017. While MFA No.103531/2019 was filed by claimant
seeking for enhancement of compensation; MFA No.
103174/2019 was filed by NEKRTC challenging award both on
quantum and negligence. Review petitioner was appellant in MFA
No.103531/2019.
3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that
above appeals were disposed of on 23.12.2020. However, while
computing compensation, instead of addition of 'future
prospects' at 30% and deducting '1/3' towards 'personal
expenses' of deceased, this Court added 'future prospects' at
25% and deducted '1/2' towards 'personal expenses', therefore,
compensation determined was inadequate. Hence, petitioner
challenged impugned judgment and award before the Apex Court
in SLA No.4813-4814/2021. On 20.07.2021, they were disposed
of reserving liberty to petitioner to seek review of impugned
judgment and award. In terms of liberty reserved, these
petitions are filed.
4. It was submitted that deceased Sharanappa was aged
about 41 years, working as agriculturist. Petitioner is wife of
Sharanappa. Even though, she was the only dependant -
claimant, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SARLA VERMA (SMT)
AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND
ANOTHER, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, has held in
paragraph no.30 that in case deceased was married, deduction
towards 'personal expenses' was to be at '1/3'. Insofar as
addition of 'future prospects', it was submitted that 30% was
required to be added instead of 25%.
5. As the above errors are apparent on the face of record,
being contrary to law, learned counsel submitted that impugned
judgment and award were liable to be reviewed by passing
appropriate award in accordance with law.
6. On the other hand, Sri S.C.Bhuti, learned counsel for
respondent - NEKRTC supported impugned judgment and award
sought for dismissal of review petition. It was submitted that
deceased was self-employed and aged more than 40 years and
this Court had rightly added 25% towards 'future prospects'. It
was further submitted that in several decisions of this Court, in
case of sole dependant even where deceased was married, this
Court deducted 50% towards 'personal expenses' and submitted
that there was no merit in the review petition.
7. On perusal of impugned judgment, award and record, it
is seen that both claimant and NEKRTC filed respective appeals
challenging judgment and award passed by tribunal. They were
clubbed together and disposed of on 23.12.2020.
8. The main grounds urged for enhancement of
compensation was in respect of monthly income of deceased.
Petitioner - claimant submitted that though deceased was
earning Rs.5,00,000/- per annum, tribunal was not justified in
taking his monthly income as Rs.6,000/-.
9. On the other hand, respondent - NEKRTC contended
that finding of tribunal regarding negligence was unsustainable
and that tribunal had erred in adding 'future prospects' at 40%
and not deducting '1/2' of income of deceased towards 'personal
expenses'.
10. Considering said submissions, this Court took notional
monthly income adopted for settlement of cases before Lok
Adalat for the year 2016 at Rs.8,750/-, as income of deceased.
Further, as there was only one dependant and as tribunal had
not deducted any amount towards 'personal expenses', '1/2'
was deducted and after adding 25% towards 'future prospects' in
terms of decision in the case of "NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED VS. PRANAY SETHI AND ORS. reported
in AIR 2017 SC 5157, total compensation was reassessed at
Rs.9,88,750/-.
11. In the light of the above, the only point that arises for
consideration in this petition is:
"Whether petitioner has made out a case for review
of impugned judgment?"
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramla & Ors. Vs.
National Insurance Company Limited & Ors. reported in
(2019) 2 SCC 192, referring to earlier decision in the case of
Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh reported in [(2003) 2 SCC
274; Magma General Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs. Nanu Ram
reported in [(2018) 18 SCC 130] and Ibrahim Vs. Raju
reported in [(2011) 10 SCC 634] has held that
Courts/Tribunals are duty bound to award 'just compensation'.
With a view to ensure the above, we have carefully considered
the grounds urged by petitioner.
13. Firstly, there is no dispute about age of deceased
determined by tribunal as 41 years. It is also not in dispute that
deceased was married and was an agriculturist. Insofar as
addition of future prospects, Hon'ble Supreme Court in para
no.61.4 of it's decision in Pranay Sethi's case (supra) has held
as under:
" 61.4: In case the deceased was self-employed or on
a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established
income should be the warrant where the deceased
was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25%
where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50
years and 10% where the deceased was between the
age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the
necessary method of computation. The established
income means the income minus the tax component".
(emphasis supplied)
14. In view of the above, addition of 'future prospects' in
the present case will be at 25%. As the same has been followed
in this case, there are no grounds made out to interfere with the
impugned judgment on this count, in exercise of power under
review jurisdiction.
15. Insofar as deduction towards 'personal expenses',
principles evolved in Sarla Verma's case (supra) in para no.30,
are affirmed in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), which is extracted
hereunder:
"30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made
towards personal and living expenses calculated on
the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the
general practice is to apply standardised deductions.
Having considered several subsequent decisions of this
Court, we are of the view that where the deceased
was married, the deduction towards personal and
living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third
(1/3rd) where the number of dependant family
members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the
number of dependant family members is 4 to 6 and,
one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant
family members exceeds six.".
16. In view of the above and as deceased was married,
deduction towards 'personal expenses' has to be at '1/3', even
where number of dependants is less than three. However, in
impugned judgment deduction towards 'personal expenses' has
been at 50%. Same would be contrary to the law. Therefore,
petitioner has made out sufficient ground for review insofar as
deduction towards 'personal expenses' only. Upon review and re-
assessment, award towards loss of dependency would be as
follows:
Rs.8,750 + 40 % - 1/3 X 12 X 14 = Rs.13,71,999/-.
Hence, point for consideration is answered partly in affirmative.
17. Needless to state that claimant would be entitled to
addition of Rs.70,000/- under conventional heads as per Pranay
Sethi's case (supra). Thus, total compensation would now be
Rs.14,41,999/- which is rounded off to Rs.14,42,000/-. In the
result, we pass the following:
ORDER
Review petition is allowed in part.
Impugned judgment and award dated 23.12.2020 is
modified as follows:
Both appeals filed by claimant and respondent no.2 -
Corporation are allowed in part.
Claimant is entitled to total compensation of
Rs.14,42,000/- as against Rs.14,81,200/- awarded by the
tribunal with 6% interest per annum from date of claim petition
till realisation.
The judgment and award dated 18.6.2019 passed by
Tribunal in MVC No.114/2017 is modified as indicated above.
The respondent - corporation (NEKRTC) is directed to
deposit remaining amount with interest within a period of six
weeks.
The directions issued by Tribunal regarding proportion of
deposit and release shall apply to reassessed compensation also.
The amount in deposit in MFA No.103174/2019 is ordered to be
transmitted to tribunal for payment.
SD/-
JUDGE
SD/-
JUDGE
Psg*
