Karnataka High Court
Renuka W/O Late Ramesh And Ors vs Nazeer Ali S/O Taheer Ali And Anr on 7 February, 2022
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar, K S Hemalekha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH 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.200195/2021 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. Renuka W/o Late Ramesh,
Age: 27 Years, Occ: Household,
2. Nagamma D/o Late Ramesh,
Age: 12 Years, Occ: Student Minor,
3. Rahul S/o Late Ramesh,
Age: 8 Years, Student Minor,
Appellant No.2 and 3 minors U/g
Their mother Renuka claimant/
Appellant No.1.
4. Dropati W/o Late Chandrappa,
Aged: 57 Years, Occ: Household,
All R/o Nagaidlai, Tq: Chincholi,
Now at Labour Colony,
H.No.19-06-12 Dist: Bidar.
... Appellants
(By Sri. Santosh Biradar, Advocate)
2
AND:
1. Nazeer Ali S/o Taheer Ali,
Age: Major, Occ: Business,
R/o H.No.40-21, Deshpande Galli,
B.Kalyan, Now Maheboob Nagar-585327.
2. The Manager,
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
3rd Floor Asian Plaza, Timmapuri Circle,
Main Road, Kalaburagi-585 102.
... Respondents
(By Smt. Preeti Patil Melkundi, Advocate for R2;
R1 served)
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, praying to allow the
appeal, modify the impugned judgment and award dated
20.08.2019 passed by the Court of II Addl. Senior Civil
Judge and JMFC, Bidar, in MVC No.66/2019 and enhance
the compensation as prayed for.
This appeal coming on for admission this day,
K.S. Hemalekha J, delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Though the matter is listed for admission, with the
consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is
taken up for final disposal.
2. The claimants have preferred this appeal
seeking enhancement of compensation by assailing the
judgment and award dated 20.08.2019 passed in MVC
No.66/2019 by the 2nd Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC,
Bidar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short).
3. The claimants filed a claim petition under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the
Tribunal, claiming compensation of Rs.38,80,000/- on
account of death of one Ramesh S/o late Chandrappa who
died in a fatal road traffic accident, contending that on
12.08.2018 at about 10.15 hours, the deceased was on
duty as a cleaner of Lorry bearing No.MH-22/N-1712 and
when he was proceeding in the said vehicle along with
respondent No.1 - owner-cum-driver from Naginkhera to
B.Kalyan via Mannaekhalli and the vehicle reached near
Solar Plant at Nirna road, respondent No.1 asked the
deceased to check the air of the left tyres and stopped the
vehicle. The deceased on the instructions from respondent
No.1 - owner-cum-driver of the vehicle went to check the
left side tyres from the front side of the lorry. At that time,
respondent No.1 suddenly drove the vehicle in a rash and
negligent manner and in that process dashed the deceased
with full force and due to the impact of the accident, the
deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot.
Claimants are the wife, minor children and mother of the
deceased. The deceased was hale and healthy and was
aged about 28 years at the time of accidental death and
was working as a cleaner and drawing salary of
Rs.15,000/- per month along with Rs.200/- as daily
Bhatta. The claimants were solely depending upon the
income of the deceased.
4. On issuance of notice by the Tribunal,
respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared and filed their separate
written statements.
5. Respondent No.1-owner of the offending
vehicle contended that the vehicle was duly insured with
respondent No.2 and the policy was in force and the
accident took place for no fault of the deceased and as
such, sought to dismiss the claim petition as not
maintainable.
6. Respondent No.2-insurance company would
contend that the terms and conditions of the policy have
been violated by respondent No.1 and the driver of the
vehicle did not possess valid and effective driving licence
as on the date of the accident.
7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,
the Tribunal framed the following:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioners prove that, on
12.08.2018 deceased Ramesh was on duty
as a cleaner in Lorry No.MH-22/N-1712 its
driver stopped the Lorry and directed the
deceased to check the Air of the Lorry.
When deceased going to check the left side
of tyre the respondent No.1 suddenly
started the vehicle process the vehicle as a
result deceased Ramesh sustained
grievous injury he was died on the spot?
2. Whether the respondent No.2 proves that
the first respondent violated the terms and
conditions of the insurance policy?
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation as claimed? If so, to what
amount and from whom?
4. What order or Award?
8. In order to substantiate their case, claimant
No.1 wife of the deceased examined herself as PW.1 and
got marked 10 documents as Exs.P1 to P10. On the other
hand, respondents did not lead any evidence or got
marked any document.
9. 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 the driver
of the offending vehicle bearing Reg.No.MH-22/N-1712
and the deceased died due to the accident that occurred
on 12.08.2018 and awarded a compensation of
Rs.10,21,864/- with interest at 6% per annum from the
date of petition till the date of realization under the
following heads:
1. Towards loss of dependency Rs.9,51,864/-
2. Towards loss of consortium Rs.40,000/-
3. Towards loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
4. Towards funeral, obsequies Rs.15,000/-
and Transportation of dead
body etc.
Total Rs.10,21,864/-
10. The claimants, not being satisfied with the
quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal have
preferred the present appeal.
11. Heard the learned counsel for the
appellants/claimants and the learned counsel for
respondent No.2-insurance company and perused the
material on record.
12. Sri Santosh Biradar, learned counsel for the
appellants would contend that the Tribunal has not
considered the actual income and the age of the deceased
for arriving at compensation under the head 'loss of
dependency' and has not awarded any amount towards
future prospects at 40%, as the deceased was aged about
23 years and thus, the compensation awarded towards
loss of dependency is on the lower side. It is further
contended that the compensation awarded under the
conventional heads viz., loss of love and affection, loss of
estate, loss consortium, funeral expenses and
transportation of dead body is on the lower side and
requires to be enhanced.
13. Per contra, Smt. Preeti Patil Melkundi, 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.
14. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties, the only point that arises for consideration in this
appeal is,
Whether the judgment and award passed by
the Tribunal requires interference insofar as
the quantum of compensation is concerned?
15. The fact that deceased Ramesh succumbed to
the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident that
occurred on 12.08.2018 due to the rash and negligent
driving of the driver-cum-owner of the Lorry bearing
Reg.No.MH-22/N-1712 is not in dispute. However, the
controversy is with regard to the quantum of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal.
16. The accident has occurred in the year 2018
and the deceased was the cleaner of the lorry bearing
Reg.MH-22/N-1712 and was earning Rs.15,000/- per
month in addition to a daily Bhatta of Rs.200/-. The
Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at
Rs.7,000/- 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 2018 is to be taken at
Rs.11,750/- per month. Hence, taking the income of the
deceased at Rs.11,750/- per month and adding 40% i.e.,
Rs.4,700/- 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, the total income of the
deceased per month would be Rs.16,450/-. After deducting
1/3rd of it towards personal expenses of the deceased and
applying the multiplier of 18 since the deceased was aged
23 years, the total compensation payable towards loss of
dependency would come to Rs.23,68,800/- (Rs.16,450 x
12 x 18 x 2/3).
17. 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 four in number i.e., the wife, children and mother
of the deceased would be entitled to Rs.40,000/- each i.e.
Rs.1,60,000/- towards loss of spousal, parental and filial
consortium. Further, the appellants are entitled for a sum
of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/-
towards funeral and obsequies ceremony.
18. Thus, in all, the appellants are entitled for total
compensation of Rs.25,58,872/- as under:
1. Towards loss of dependency Rs.23,68,800/-
3. Towards loss of spousal, Rs.1,60,000/-
parental and filial consortium
4. Towards loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
5. Towards funeral and obsequies Rs.15,000/-
ceremony
Total Rs.25,58,800/-
19. Since the Tribunal has awarded a
compensation of Rs.10,21,864/-, after deducting the
same, the appellants are entitled for enhanced
compensation of Rs.15,36,936/- (Rs.25,58,800/- less
Rs.10,21,864/-) with interest at 6% per annum from the
date of petition till realization.
20. In view of the same, the point raised for
consideration is answered in the affirmative.
21. In the result, we pass the following
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed in part.
ii) The impugned judgment and award dated
20.08.2019 passed by the Tribunal in MVC
No.66/2019is hereby modified.
iii) The appellants/claimants are entitled for
enhanced compensation of Rs.15,36,936/-
with interest @ 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 aforesaid compensation with
updated interest within a period of four weeks
from the date of receipt of a certified copy of
this judgment.
vi) Registry is directed to send back the Trial
Court records to the Tribunal forthwith.
vii) Parties to bear their respective costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SMP/LG
