Karnataka High Court
Savita W/O Balu Bhoi @ Bhui And Ors vs Shubangi W/O Balu Jadhav And Anr on 8 February, 2022
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar, K S Hemalekha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH 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.201644/2021 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. Savita W/o Balu Bhoi @ Bhui,
Age: 34 years,
Occ: Household work,
2. Ajay S/o Balu Bhoi @ Bhui,
Age: 16 years, Occ: Student,
3. Anjali D/o Balu Bhoi @ Bhui,
Age: 13 years, Occ: Student,
Appellants No.2 and 3 are minors
R/by his natural mother guardian
Appellant No.1 Smt. Savita
W/o Balu Bhoi @ Bhui.
4. Jalindar
S/o Shankar Bhoi @ Bhui,
Age: 69 years, Occ: Nil,
5. Laxmi
W/o Jalindar Bhoi @ Bhui,
Age: 58 years, Occ: Household work,
2
All are R/o: Nali, Tq: Pandarpur,
Dist: Solapur, Now residing at Arakeri,
Tq: & Dist: Vijayapura-586203.
... Appellants
(By Sri. Koujalagi Chandrakanth Laxman, Advocate)
AND:
1. Shubangi W/o Balu Jadhav,
Age: Major, Occ: Business,
R/o: Sathe Nagar, Mohal, Tq: Mohal,
Dist: Solapur-413213 (Maharashtra State)
2. The Manager,
The New India Assurance Company Ltd.,
Gurukul road, Vijayapura-586 101.
... Respondents
(Sri. Sanjay M. Joshi, Advocate for R2;
Notice to R1 is dispensed with)
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, praying to call for the
records. To modify the judgment and award dated
30.03.2021 passed in MVC NO.691/2019 on the file of the
court of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and Member
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.VII Vijayapura at
Vijayapura. And allow this appeal by enhancing the
compensation amount by Rs.48,10,300/- only as claimed
by the appellants before this Hon'ble Court and etc.
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
assailing the judgment and award dated 30.03.2021 in
MVC.No.691/2019 on the file of the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge
and MACT-VII, Vijayapura (hereinafter referred to as "the
Tribunal" for short) seeking enhancement of compensation.
3. The claimants filed claim petition under Section
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the Act" for short)
seeking compensation of Rs.62,00,000/- on account of death
of one Balu S/o Jalindar Bhoi @ Bhui, who succumbed to the
injuries in a road traffic accident that occurred on 10.05.2019,
when he was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing
registration No.MH-14/GZ-6704 from Pune to his village Nali
and Wagon-R Car bearing Reg. No.MH-13/AC-2478 came in
a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the
motorcycle of the deceased when he was near Manik Farm of
Yawali Village on Pune- Mohal Road. Due to the impact of the
accident the deceased sustained grievous injuries and he
succumbed to the same during the treatment. The deceased
was aged about 35 years and was doing vegetable business
and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. The claimants are
the wife, children and parents of the deceased who are
dependent upon him for their livelihood. The deceased was
sole bread earner of the family.
4. In pursuance of the notice issued by the Tribunal,
respondent No.2 appeared through the counsel and filed its
written statement. Respondent No.1/owner of the vehicle
though served with the notice did not appear and hence, was
placed ex parte.
5. Respondent No.2/insurance company contended
that the vehicle Wagon-R bearing registration No.MH-13/AC-
2478 was not insured with the respondent as on the date of
the accident. It is contended that the accident occurred due to
the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle which was
driven by the deceased. It is also contended that the amount
of compensation claimed by the claimants is on the higher
side.
6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the
Tribunal framed the following:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioners prove that
deceased Balu S/o. Jalindar Bhoi @ Bhui
died due to actionable rash and negligent
act of driver of Wagon-r Car bearing
Reg.No.MH-13/AC-2478 in the motor
vehicle accident on the date, time and
place as being asserted?
2. Whether the respondent No.2 proves that
due to violation of policy conditions,
insurer is not liable to pay compensation?
3. Whether the respondent No.2 proves that
this petition is not maintainable due to
non-joinder of necessary parties?
4. Whether this tribunal has jurisdiction to
entertain this petition?
5. Whether petitioners are entitled for the
compensation? If so, how much and from
whom?
6. What order or award?
7. In order to substantiate the claim, claimant
No.4/father of the deceased examined himself as PW.1 and
got marked the documents at Exs.P-1 to P-23. On the other
hand, respondent No.2 did not adduce any evidence, but got
marked Ex.R-1 which is the insurance policy.
8. The tribunal, on the basis of the pleadings,
evidence and material on record, held that the accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
Wagon-R Car bearing registration No.MH-13/AC-2478 and
due to the impact of the accident, the deceased succumbed to
the injuries and awarded the compensation of Rs.13,89,700/-
with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of
petition till realization and fastened the liability on the
insurance company to pay the compensation amount under
the following heads:
Compensation
Sl.No. Different Heads
Amount
1 Loss of dependency Rs.11,52,000/-
2 Medical expenses Rs.1,52,659/-
3 Transportation of dead body Rs.25,000/-
and funeral expenses
4 Loss of estate Rs.20,000/-
5 Loss of love and affection Rs.40,000/-
Total Rs.13,89,659/-
Rounded off to Rs.13,89,700/-
9. Being unsatisfied with the award of compensation
by the Tribunal, the claimants have preferred this appeal
seeking enhancement of compensation.
10. Heard Sri. Koujalagi Chandrakanth Laxman,
learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for
respondent No.2/insurance company.
11. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend
that the award of compensation by the Tribunal taking notional
income of deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month is much on the
lower side. The quantum of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal requires re-assessment and hence, sought for
enhancement of compensation.
12. Per contra, learned counsel for the insurance
company would contend that the award of compensation by
the Tribunal is just, fair and proper compensation and does
not call for any interference by this Court and sought to
dismiss the appeal of the claimants.
13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
in view of the rival contentions urged by the parties, the only
point that arises for consideration is:
"Whether the judgment and award passed by
the Tribunal requires any interference insofar as
quantum of compensation is concerned?"
14. The date, time and occurrence of the accident
and the deceased Balu Bhoi @ Bhui was succumbed to the
injuries due to the road traffic accident due to rash and
negligent driving of the said Wagon-R Car is not in dispute.
The only controversy is with regard to quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal, while
assessing the loss of dependency has taken the income of the
deceased at Rs.8,000/-per month and awarded
Rs.11,52,000/-. The perusal of the judgment and award of the
Tribunal would depict that the award of compensation is not as
per the dictum of the Apex Court in the cases of National
Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi [(2017)16 SCC 680]
and Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu
Ram and others [(2018)18 SCC 130]. Thus, in our
considered view, the judgment and award insofar as award of
compensation is concerned requires to be re-assessed. The
claimants have contended that the deceased was earning
Rs.20,000/- per month by selling vegetables, but in order to
substantiate the exact income of the deceased, claimants
have not produced any documentary evidence in that regard.
As per the Karnataka State Legal Services guidelines, if no
documents are produced to show the actual income of the
deceased, the year of the accident is relevant for ascertaining
the notional income and as per the Lokadalat guidelines, for
the accident that occurred in the year 2019, the notional
income of the deceased is to be taken at Rs.13,250/- and
adding 40% i.e., Rs.5,300/- towards future prospects as per
the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National
Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others
reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the total income of the
deceased would be Rs.18,550/- and deducting 1/4 th towards
personal expenses and applying the multiplier of 16 as the
deceased was aged about 35 years at the time of the
accident, the loss of dependency would come to
Rs.26,71,200/- (Rs.18,550/- X 12 X 16 X 3/4).
15. In view of dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
cases of Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors. v. United
India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in AIR 2020 SC 3076 and
in Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu
Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18
SCC 130, the appellants being the parents, wife and children
of the deceased, who are five in number are entitled to
Rs.40,000/- each i.e., Rs.2,00,000/- towards filial, spousal and
parental consortium.
16. Further, the appellants are entitled for a sum of
Rs.30,000/- towards 'transportation of dead body, funeral
expenses and obsequies expenses and Rs.40,000/- towards
loss of estate. The amount awarded towards medical
expenses in a sum of Rs.1,52,659/- is just and proper, which
stands undisturbed.
17. Thereby, the appellants are entitled for total
compensation under various heads as under:
Loss of dependency Rs.26,71,200/-
Medical expenses Rs.1,52,659/-
Loss of filial, parental Rs.2,00,000/-
& spousal consortium
Loss of estate Rs.40,000/-
Transportation of dead Rs.30,000/-
body & funeral
expenses
Total Rs.30,93,859/-
18. The Tribunal has already awarded compensation
of Rs.13,89,700/-. Hence, after deducting the same, the
appellants are entitled for enhanced compensation of
Rs.17,04,159/- (Rs.30,93,859/- less Rs.13,89,700/-) with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim
petition till the date of realization. Accordingly, the point that
arose for our consideration is answered in the affirmative.
19. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
(I) Appeal is allowed in part.
(II) The judgment and award dated 30.03.2021, passed
in MVC.No.691/19, by the Tribunal is modified and
the appellants/claimants are entitled to the enhanced
compensation of Rs.17,04,159/- with interest at the
rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the
date of realization.
(III) The apportionment and deposit of the award amount
would be as per the award of the Tribunal.
(IV) The amount in deposit, if any, is directed to be
transmitted to the Tribunal.
(V) Registry is directed to transmit the trial Court record
forthwith.
(VI) No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SMP/LG
