Karnataka High Court
Savita Pawar W/O Ramesh Pawar And ... vs Nagendrappa S/O Subhash Hugar And ... on 7 February, 2022
Bench: J.M.Khazi
1 MFA.No.202239/2018
c/w MFA.No.202238/2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
MFA.No.202239/2018
c/w
MFA.No.202238/2018 (MV)
MFA.No.202239/2018
BETWEEN:
01. SAVITA W/O RAMESH PAWAR
AGE: 36 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD
02. RAKSHITA D/O RAMESH PAWAR
AGE: 15 YEARS OCC: STUDENT
03. GEETADEVI W/O GOPAL RAO
AGE: 66 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD
04. GOPAL RAO S/O NARAYANA
AGE: 76 YEARS OCC: NIL
APPELLANT NO.2 IS MINOR U/G OF HER
NATURAL MOTHER THE APPELLANT NO.1
ALL ARE R/O: H.NO.5-6-156, HYDERABAD ROAD,
HOUSING BOARD COLONY, NEAR BUS DEPOT.
YADGIR, TQ: & DIST: YADGIRI-585 201.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)
2 MFA.No.202239/2018
c/w MFA.No.202238/2018
AND:
01. NAGENDRAPPA S/O SUBHASH HUGAR
AGE: 41 YEARS OCC: OWNER OF AUTO
BEARING NO.KA-33-8981
R/O: H.NO.1/87, GUNJANOOR VILLAGE
TQ: & DIST: YADGIR-585 201.
02. ANJAPPA S/O GOPAL
AGE: 36 YEARS OCC: OWNER OF JEEP
BEARING NO.AP-22-Y-6279
R/O: PARAMESHPALLY VILLAGE
TQ & DIST: YADGIR-585 201.
03. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BILAGUNDI COMPLEX OPP. MINI
VIDHANA SOUDHA, KALABURAGI-585 102
THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER
... RESPONDENTS
(R1 AND R2 ARE SERVED)
(BY SRI. MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173 (1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO
MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.08.2018
PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT-II, YADGIRI
IN FILE BEARING MVC.NO.88/2017 AND ENHANCE THE
COMPENSATION.
3 MFA.No.202239/2018
c/w MFA.No.202238/2018
MFA.NO.202238/2018
BETWEEN:
01. NASRINA BEGUM W/O SIKANDER PATEL
AGE: 35 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD
02. MEHBOOB SALMA D/O SIKANDER PATEL
AGE: 16 YEARS OCC: STUDENT
03. MAHEEN D/O SIKANDER PATEL
AGE: 09 YEARS OCC: STUDENT
04. NOORJAHAN BEGUM W/O GANI PATEL
AGE: 61 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD
05. GANI PATEL S/O NABI PATEL
AGE: 66 YEARS OCC: NIL
APPELLANTS NO.2 AND 3 ARE MINOR
U/G OF HER NATURAL MOTHER THE
APPELLANT NO.1,
ALL ARE R/O: LADEZ GALLI, STATION BAZAR
YADGIR, TQ & DIST: YADGIRI.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
01. NAGENDRAPPA S/O SUBHASH HUGAR
AGE: 41 YEARS OCC: OWNER OF AUTO
BEARING NO.KA-33-8981
R/O: H.NO.1/87, GUNJANOOR VILLAGE
TQ: & DIST: YADGIR-585 208.
02. ANJAPPA S/O GOPAL
AGE: 36 YEARS OCC: OWNER OF JEEP
BEARING NO.AP-22-Y-6279
R/O: PARAMESHPALLY VILLAGE
TQ & DIST: YADGIR-585 206.
4 MFA.No.202239/2018
c/w MFA.No.202238/2018
03. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BILAGUNDI COMPLEX OPP. MINI
VIDHANA SOUDHA, KALABURAGI-585 102
THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER
... RESPONDENTS
(R1 AND R2 ARE SERVED)
(BY SRI. MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173 (1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO
MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.08.2018
PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT-II, YADGIRI
IN FILE BEARING MVC.NO.89/2017 AND ENHANCE THE
COMPENSATION.
THESE APPEALS BEING HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 13.01.2022, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT
These two appeals by the claimants for enhancement
are arising out of common judgment in MVC.No.88/2017
and MVC.No.89/2017 respectively.
c/w MFA.No.202238/2018
2. The claimants in MVC.No.88/2017 are the wife,
daughter and parents of the deceased. Similarly, the
claimants in MVC.No.89/2017 are the wife, children and
parents of the deceased.
3. For the sake of convenience the parties are
referred to by their rank before the Tribunal.
4. It is alleged that on 09.03.2017 at the time of
accident both deceased i.e., Ramesh Pawar and Sikinder
Patel were traveling in Auto-rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-
33-8981 on Yadgiri - Narayanpeth main road. At about
04.40 p.m. when they were near Ammapalli Gate in Annapur
village limits, the driver of the Auto-rickshaw drove the same
in a rash or negligent manner and simultaneously the
driver of Jeep bearing Reg.No.AP-22-Y-6279 drove the
Jeep in a rash or negligent manner and dashed against the
Auto-rickshaw. The accident occurred due to the fault of
the both drivers of the Auto-rickshaw as well as the Jeep.
In the accident both Ramesh Pawar and Sikander Patel
sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot.
c/w MFA.No.202238/2018
5. After due enquiry, the Tribunal held that the
accident was due to rash or negligent driving on the part of
both the drivers of Auto-rickshaw as well as the Jeep. At
the time of accident, both the vehicles were duly covered
by a valid insurance issued by respondent No.3 and as
such it is liable to pay the compensation with interest.
6. The respondent No.3 has not challenged the
impugned judgment and award.
7. In MVC.No.88/2017 the Tribunal has granted
compensation as detailed under:-
Heads Amount
In
Loss of dependency 8,19,000/-
Loss of love and affection 50,000/-
Towards funeral expenses 25,000/-
Towards Transportation of dead 10,000/-
body
Loss of consortium 1,00,000/-
Total 10,04,000/-
c/w MFA.No.202238/2018
8. On the other hand, in MVC.No.89/2017 the
Tribunal has granted compensation as detailed under:-
Heads Amount
In
Loss of dependency 8,82,000/-
Loss of love and affection 50,000/-
Towards funeral expenses 25,000/-
Towards Transportation of dead 10,000/-
body
Loss of consortium 1,00,000/-
Total 10,67,000/-
9. In both cases, the Tribunal has taken the
monthly income of the deceased as `.7,000/-, whereas,
according to the learned counsel representing the
claimants, it should have been `.10,250/-. He further
submitted that in both cases, the loss of future prospects
is not considered by the Tribunal and therefore,
compensation under the said head is required to be added.
He would further submits that in MVC.No.88/2017 there
are four dependents and therefore at the rate of
`.40,000/- each the compensation under the head of loss
of consortium should be `.1,60,000/-, whereas under the
head of loss of consortium a sum of `.1,00,000/- is
c/w MFA.No.202238/2018
granted and in another head i.e., loss of love and affection
`.50,000/- has been granted. He fairly conceded that no
compensation is required to be granted under the head of
love and affection when the compensation is being granted
under the head of loss of consortium. He would further
submits that a sum of `.25,000/- is granted under the
head of funeral expenses, whereas it should be confined to
`.15,000/-. He would further submits that the funeral
expenses includes the transportation charges and
therefore, the compensation granted in a sum of
`.10,000/- under the head of transportation is to be
deducted. Whereas in MVC.No.89/2017 since the
dependents are five, the loss of consortium should be
`.2,00,000/- and not `.1,00,000/-.
10. So far as, MFA.No.202239/2018 (MVC.No.88/
2017) is concerned, at the time of death the deceased was
a driver. As per the P.M. report he was aged about 46
years. The incident has taken place on 09.03.2017.
Therefore, the income should be taken as `.10,250/- per
month.
c/w MFA.No.202238/2018
11. To this loss of future prospects are to be
added. Since, the deceased was a driver and was aged 46
years, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Pranay Sethi's case which is reiterated in Magma's case,
25% of income is to be added under the head loss of
future prospects to calculate the loss of dependency.
12. 25% of `.10,250/- comes to `.2,562/-.
Together the monthly income comes to `.12,812/-. Having
regard to the fact that the deceased was 46 years old, the
appropriate multiplier is 13. Since, there are four
dependents, 1/4th of his monthly income is to be deducted
towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased.
Therefore, 3/4th of the income is to be taken into
consideration for calculating the loss of dependency i.e.,
`.12,812x12x13x3/4th=`.14,99,160/-.
13. Since, the deceased has left four dependents,
under the head of loss of consortium i.e., loss of spousal
consortium, loss of filial consortium and loss of parental
consortium at the rate of `.40,000/- each, the claimants
c/w MFA.No.202238/2018
are entitled for compensation of `.1,60,000/-. To this
under the conventional heads loss of estate in a sum of
`.15,000/- and under the head funeral expenses
`.15,000/- is to be granted. Thus, in all the claimants are
entitled for a total sum of `.16,89,160/- and it is rounded
off to `.16,89,200/- as against `.10,04,000/- granted by
the Tribunal as detailed below:-
Awarded by Enhanced by
Heads the Tribunal this Court
in Rs. In Rs.
Loss of dependency 8,19,000/- 14,99,160/-
Loss of consortium 1,00,000/- 1,60,000/-
Loss of Estate - 15,000/-
Funeral expenses 25,000/- 15,000/-
Loss of love and 50,000/- -
affection
Towards 10,000/- -
Transportation of dead
body
Total 10,04,000/- 16,89,160/-
Rounded off 16,89,200/-
14. In MFA.No.202238/2018 (MVC.No.89/2017)
also the deceased was a driver. As per the P.M. report he
was aged about 44 years. The incident has taken place on
09.03.2017. Therefore, the income should be taken as
`.10,250/- per month.
c/w MFA.No.202238/2018
15. To this loss of future prospects are to be
added. Since, the deceased was a driver and was aged 44
years, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Pranay Sethi's case which is reiterated in Magma's case,
25% of income is to be added under the head loss of
future prospects to calculate the loss of dependency.
16. 25% of `.10,250/- comes to `.2,562/-.
Together the monthly income comes to `.12,812/-. Having
regard to the fact that the deceased was 44 years old, the
appropriate multiplier is 14. Since, there are five
dependents, 1/4th of his monthly income is to be deducted
towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased.
Therefore, 3/4th of the income is to be taken into
consideration for calculating the loss of dependency i.e.,
`.12,812 x 12 x 14 x 3/4th = `.16,14,312/-.
17. Since, the deceased has left five dependents,
under the head of loss of consortium i.e., loss of spousal
consortium, loss of filial consortium and loss of parental
consortium at the rate of `.40,000/- each, the claimants
c/w MFA.No.202238/2018
are entitled for compensation of `.2,00,000/-. To this
under the conventional heads loss of estate in a sum of
`.15,000/- and under the head of funeral expenses
`.15,000/- is to be granted. Thus, in all the claimants are
entitled for a total sum of `.18,44,312/- and it is rounded
off to `.18,44,500/- as against `.10,67,000/- granted by
the Tribunal as detailed below:-
Awarded by Enhanced by
Heads the Tribunal this Court
In Rs. In Rs.
Loss of dependency 8,82,000/- 16,14,312/-
Loss of consortium 1,00,000/- 2,00,000/-
Loss of Estate - 15,000/-
Funeral expenses 25,000/- 15,000/-
Loss of love and 50,000/- -
affection
Towards 10,000/- -
Transportation of
dead body
Total 10,67,000/- 18,44,312/-
Rounded off 18,44,500/-
18. In the result, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
I. Both the appeals are allowed in part.
c/w MFA.No.202238/2018
II. In MFA.No.200239/2018 the compensation is
enhanced to `.16,89,200/- as against
`.10,04,000/- granted by the Tribunal.
III. In MFA.No.200238/2018 the compensation is
enhanced to `.18,44,500/- as against
`.10,67,000/- granted by the Tribunal.
IV. The respondent No.3 - insurance company is
directed to pay the compensation with interest
at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its
realization, minus the compensation already
paid, within a period of eight weeks from the
date of this judgment.
V. The apportionment and deposit of the
enhanced compensation shall be as per the
order of the Tribunal.
SD/-
JUDGE
KJJ
