Karnataka High Court
Smt.Renuka W/O Netaji Satpute vs Shri.Mahesh S/O Dhondiram ... on 7 February, 2022
Bench: S G Pandit, Anant Ramanath Hegde
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
MFA No.102645 OF 2019 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. RENUKA W/O NETAJI SATPUTE
AGE:33 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O UCHAGAON-591128,
TALUKA & DIST:BELAGAVI.
2. KUMAR TANISH S/O NETAJI SATPUTE
AGE:12 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT.
3. KUMARI SASHAMEET S/O NETAJI SATPUTE
AGE:10 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT
APPELLANT 2 AND 3 BEING MINORS REP. BY THEIR
NEXT FRIEND NATURAL MOTHER SMT. RENUKA
W/O NETAJI SATPUTE-APPELANT NO.1
...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. SUNANDA P PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SHRI. MAHESH S/O DHONDIRAM JAMADADE
AGE:40 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS,
R/O MANERJURI-461408,
TALUKA:TASGAON, DIST:SANGLI,
MAHARASHTRA STATE.
2
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
MARUTI GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001.
3. SMT. TULASABAI W/O SIDRAM SATPUTE
AGE:57 YEARS,OCC:NIL,
R/O UCHAGAON-591128.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.R.R. MANE, ADV. FOR R2)
(R1-SERVED) (R3-DISPENSED WITH)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING THIS HON'BLE COURT
TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 5.9.2018 IN MVC NO.1668/2014 PASSED BY
THE X ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE & MEMBER,
ADDL. MACT, BELAGAVI AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION
FROM RS.19,60,000/- TO RS.60,00,000/- TO THE
APPELLANTS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
S.G. PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGEMENT
Though this appeal is listed for admission, it is taken
up for final disposal, with the consent of learned counsel
for both the parties.
2. The appellants/claimants are before this Court
praying for enhancement of compensation, not being
satisfied with the compensation awarded under judgment
and award dated 05.09.2018 passed in MVC No.1668/2014
on the file of the learned X Addl. District and Sessions
Judge & Member, Addl. MACT, Belagavi (for short,
'Tribunal').
3. The claimants, who are the wife, two minor
children and mother of deceased Netaji Satpute filed a
claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 seeking compensation for the accidental death of
deceased Netaji Satpute, which took place on 18.01.2014
involving Tata Indica Car bearing registration No.MH-14/P-
545 and Motor Cycle bearing registration No.MH-10/AL-
9955. It is stated that the deceased was aged about 35
years as on the date of the accident and was working as
Sub-contractor and thereby earning Rs.30,000/- per
month.
4. On issuance of notice, respondents 1 & 2
appeared through their counsels and filed their separate
written statements denying the entire averments made in
the claim petition.
5. The claimants in order to prove their case
examined PW1 to PW5 and got marked the documents as
Exs.P1 to P54, whereas respondent/Insurance Company
examined RW1 and marked two documents as Ex.R1 & R2.
The Tribunal on appreciation of the material evidence on
record awarded a total compensation of Rs.19,60,000/-
with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till
date of realization on the following heads:
Loss of dependency Rs.18,90,000/-
Loss of consortium Rs. 40,000/-
Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-
Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/-
Total Rs.19,60,000/-
6. While awarding the above compensation, the
Tribunal assessed the notional income of the deceased at
Rs.10,000/- per annum, added 40% of the assessed
income towards future prospects, applied multiplier of 15
and deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses of the
deceased. The claimants not being satisfied with the
quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal are
before this Court praying for enhancement of
compensation.
7. Heard Smt. Sunanda P Patil, learned counsel
appearing for the appellants/claimants and Sri. R.R. Mane,
learned counsel for respondent/Insurance Company and
perused the appeal papers along with original records.
8. Smt. Sunanda P Patil, learned counsel for the
appellants/claimants would submit that the income of the
deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.10,000/- per
month is on the lower side and it ought to have assessed
the same at Rs.30,000/- per month. It is her submission
that the deceased was working as Sub-contractor and to
prove the income of the deceased, the claimants examined
PW5 and also produced vouchers and other relevant
documents. It is further submitted that the Tribunal failed
to award compensation on the head of medical expenses,
even though the claimants produced the medical bills to
the extent of Rs.6,64,528/-. She further submits that since
the claimants 2 and 3 deprived of love and affection and
care of the deceased father, they would be entitled to
Rs.40,000/- each towards parental consortium and
respondent No.3-mother of the deceased would be entitled
to Rs.40,000/- towards filial consortium as held by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General
Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Nanu Ram and Others,
reported in 2018 ACJ 2782. Thus, she prays for allowing
the appeal.
9. Per contra, Sri. R.R. Mane, learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.2-Insurance Company
supporting the impugned judgment and award would
submit that the notional income assessed by the Tribunal
is proper and correct, since no corroborative evidence
placed on record to establish the exact income of the
deceased. He further submits that even no bank
statement is produced to show that the deceased was
receiving payments from PW5. In the absence of such
evidence, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of
the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month. He further
submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on
all heads is just and reasonable, which needs no
interference by this Court. Thus, he prays for dismissal of
the appeal.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for both the
parties and on perusal of the appeal papers along with
original records, the only point that would fall for
consideration in this appeal is as to, whether the claimants
would be entitled for enhancement of compensation?
11. Our answer to the above point is in the
affirmative for the following reasons.
12. The accident which took place on 18.01.2014
resultant death of deceased Netaji Satpute is not in dispute
in the present appeal. There is also no dispute with regard
to the age and avocation of the deceased. It is the
contention of the claimants that the notional income of the
deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.10,000/- per
month is on the lower side. The claimants in order to
prove their case, examined PW5-PWD Contractor(Class-V).
PW5 in his evidence has deposed that the deceased Netaji
Satpute was working under him as sub-contractor and he
had made several payments to the said deceased towards
his work as sub-contractor. But the claimants failed to
produce any documents to show the payment made by
PW5 to the deceased. Ex.P32 series vouchers and receipts
would not contain the signature of either deceased or PW5.
Assuming that those receipts are genuine, the entire
amount cannot be considered as income of the deceased,
as he would have made payment to workers under him.
No document is placed on record to indicate the exact
income of the deceased. In the absence of any
corroborative piece of evidence, the Tribunal has rightly
assessed the notional income of the deceased at
Rs.10,000/- per month, which in our view is just and
proper and needs no interference by this Court. Age of the
deceased, addition of 40% towards future prospects,
deduction of 1/4th towards personal expenses of the
deceased and multiplier of 15 adopted by the Tribunal is
just and proper. Thus, the compensation awarded on the
head of loss of dependency is not disturbed which is just
and reasonable.
13. The claimants claimed that they have spent
Rs.6,00,000/- towards medical expenses. But, the Tribunal
committed an error in not awarding any compensation
towards medical expenses rejecting the medical bills
produced by the claimants. On perusal of the medical bills
produced by the claimants, it is evident that the claimants
have spent a sum of Rs.5,81,240/- towards medical
expenses, since the deceased was hospitalized for a period
of more than two months prior to his death. The Tribunal
has not assigned any reason for discarding the medical
bills and not awarding any compensation towards medical
expenses. The medical bills which are marked as Ex.P7,
P18 to P23 and P25 are not disputed by the other side.
Thus, taking into consideration the medical bills produced
by the claimants, we deem it appropriate that the
claimants would be entitled to Rs.5,81,240/- towards
medical expenses.
14. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. (supra),
claimant No.1 being wife of the deceased would be entitled
to Rs.44,000/- towards spousal consortium, claimants 2
and 3 being minor children of the deceased, who have lost
love and affection, care, protection and guidance of their
deceased father, would be entitled to Rs.40,000/- each
towards parental consortium and respondent No.3, who is
mother of the deceased would be entitled to Rs.40,000/-
towards filial consortium.
15. The compensation awarded on the head of loss
of estate and funeral expenses is just and proper, which
needs no interference by this Court.
16. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for
modified compensation on the following heads:
Sl.No. Particulars Amount
1. Loss of dependency Rs.18,90,000/-
2. Loss of estate & Funeral expenses Rs. 30,000/-
3. Spousal Consortium (claimant Rs. 44,000/-
No.1)
4. Parental Consortium (Rs.40,000 Rs. 80,000/-
each to claimants 2 & 3)
5. Filial Consortium (Respondent Rs. 40,000/-
No.3)
6. Medical expenses Rs. 5,81,240/-
Total Rs.26,65,240/-
17. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to total
compensation of Rs.26,65,240/- as against
Rs.19,60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
18. Hence, we pass the following:
ORDER
a) The appeal is allowed in part.
b) The impugned judgment and award of
the Tribunal is modified to the extent
that the claimants are entitled to total
compensation of Rs.26,65,240/- as
against Rs.19,60,000/- awarded by
the Tribunal.
c) The enhanced compensation amount
will bear interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date of claim petition
till date of realization.
d) Apportionment, deposit and
disbursement of the compensation
amount shall be made as per award of
the Tribunal.
e) Draw modified award accordingly.
f) No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
JTR
