Karnataka High Court

Smt.Saroja And Ors vs Krishna Reddy T And Anr on 9 February, 2022

Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar, K S Hemalekha

                             1


          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                 KALABURAGI BENCH

      DATED THIS THE 9TH 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.201067/2019 (MV)
                       C/W
               MFA No.201069/2019

IN MFA NO.201067/2019

BETWEEN:

1.     Saroja W/o Late Sagar @ Sagar Bail Pattar,
       Age: 38 years, Occ: Housewife,

2.     Suresh @ Surya S/o Late Sagar @ Sagar Bail Pattar,
       Age: 20 years, Occ: Coolie, Works.

3.     Rajeshwari @ Radhika
       D/o Late Sagar @ Sagar Bail Pattar,
       Age: 17 Years, Occ: Nil,

4.     Chandrashekar @ Chandra
       S/o Late Sagar @ Sagar Bail Pattar,
       Age: 18 years, Occ: Nil,

       Since appellant No.3 is minors,
       Represented by their natural mother
       Appellant No.1.
                               2



       All are R/o J.P.Nagar, Near Sridevi Temple,
       Karatagi, Tq: Karatagi, Dist: Koppal now
       R/o. Rampur Village,
       Tq. & Dist: Raichur-584101.
                                               ... Appellants

(By Sri.Babu H.Metagudda, Advocate)

AND:

1.     Krishna Reddy T S/o Venkat Reddy,
       Age: 51 years, Occ: Driver Cum Owner of
       Lorry No.AP-37/TA-8988,
       R/o. D.No.3-167, Near Canal Road,
       Naggipudivi College Penumantra Mandalam,
       West Godavari Dist: Andhra-584007.

2.     The Branch Manager,
       Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
       Branch Office, K.K.Complex, City Talkies road,
       Raichur-584101.
                                            ... Respondents

(Sri.S.S.Aspalli, Advocate for R2;
R1 dispensed with)

       This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, praying to call for the
records in MVC No.172/2018 on the file of the II Addl.
District and Sessions Judge & MACT at Raichur. Allow this
appeal and modify the judgment and award dated
24.11.2018 passed in MVC No.172/2018 by the II Addl.
District and Sessions Judge & MACT at Raichur. And
Enhancing the compensation from Rs.15,82,000/- with 8%
interest to Rs.43,00,000/- with 12% interest and etc.
                              3


IN MFA NO.201069/2019

BETWEEN:

1.     Smt. Manjamma W/o Late Pakirappa,
       Age: 38 years, Occ: Household,

2.     Akshatha D/o Late Pakirappa,
       Age: 9 years, Occ: Student,
3.     Akshay Kumar S/o Late Pakirappa,
       Age: 8 years, Occ: Nil,
4.     Smt. Parvatemma W/o Late Manappa,
       Age: 66 years, Occ: Household,
       Since appellant No.2 & 3 are minors,
       Represented by their natural mother
       Appellant No.1.
       All are R/o. Valkamdinni Village,
       Tq: Manvi, Now Gilgesugur Village,
       Tq. & Dist: Raichur-584101.
                                              ... Appellants
(By Sri Babu H.Metagudda, Advocate)
AND:
1.     Krishna Reddy T S/o Venkat Reddy,
       Age: 51 years, Occ: Driver Cum Owner of
       Lorry No.AP-37/TA-8988,
       R/o. D.No.3-167, Near Canal Road,
       Naggipudivi College Penumantra Mandalam,
       West Godavari Dist: Andhra-584007.

2.    The Branch Manager,
      Oriental Insurance Ltd.,
      Branch Office, K.K.Complex, City Talkies Road,
      Raichur-584101.
                                           ... Respondents
(By Sri. S.S.Aspalli, Advocate for R2;
Notice to R1 is dispensed with)
                               4


       This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, praying to call for the
records in MVC No.174/2018 on the file of the II Addl.
District and Sessions Judge & MACT at Raichur. Allow this
appeal and modify the judgment and award dated
24.11.2018 passed in MVC No.174/2018 by the II Addl.
District and Sessions Judge & MACT at Raicur.            And
enhancing the compensation from Rs.16,82,800/- with 8%
interest to Rs.44,00,000/- with 12% interest. Grant such
other and further relief's as this Hon'ble Court deems fit, in
the circumstance of the case, in the interest of justice and
equity.

      These appeals coming on for hearing this day,
K.S. Hemalekha J., delivered the following:

                           JUDGMENT

MFA.No.201067/2019 is filed by the claimants Smt.

Saroja and others assailing the judgment and award dated

24.11.2018 in MVC.No.172/2018 on the file of II Additional

District & Sessions Judge & MACT at Raichur (hereinafter

referred to as "the Tribunal" for the sake of convenience)

seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. MFA.No.201069/2019 is filed by the claimants,

Smt. Manjamma and others assailing the judgment and award

dated 24.11.2018 in MVC.No.174/2018 on the file of the said

Tribunal, seeking enhancement of compensation.

3. The parties herein are referred to as per their

ranking before the Tribunal.

4. The claim petitions were filed by the claimants

seeking compensation of Rs.43,00,000/- and Rs.44,00,000/-

respectively with interest at the rate of 8% per annum under

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. Both the petitions

arose out of the same accident and hence, the facts are also

same.

5. On 03.03.2018, the deceased Sagar Bail Pattar

and Pakkirappa were proceeding on motorcycle bearing

registration No.KA-36/EA-0695 to attend a personal work.

When they reached near Nasalapur bridge, on Sindhanur-

Manvi main road, the driver of the lorry bearing registration

No.AP-37/TA-8988 came from opposite direction in rash and

negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle. Due to

which the rider and the pillion rider i.e., Sagar and Pakkirappa

sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot.

6. It is the contention of the claimants that the

deceased Sagar was aged 38 years and the deceased

Pakkirappa was aged 32 years at the time of the accident and

were gold smith by profession and were earning Rs.18,000/-

each and they were the only earning members of the family

and the claimants were solely depending upon the income of

the deceased.

7. In pursuance of the notice issued by the Tribunal,

respondent No.1/owner-cum-driver of the vehicle remained ex

parte. Respondent No.2/insurance company appeared and

filed their written statement.

8. Respondent No.2/insurance company contended

that the accident was due to the rash and negligence on the

part of the rider of the motorcycle and not due to the rash and

negligent driving of the offending lorry as contended by the

claimants. It is also contended that the claim of compensation

by the claimants is much on the higher side.

9. The Tribunal, on the basis of the rival pleadings of

the parties, framed the following:

ISSUES IN MVC NO.172/2018

1. Whether the petitioners prove that accident dated 03.03.2018 was due to rash and negligence of driver of vehicle bearing No.AP-37/TA-8988 and that as which deceased Sagar @ Sagar Bail Pattar sustained fatal injuries and died as alleged?

2. Whether petitioners are entitled for award of compensation? If so, from whom?

3. What order or award?

ISSUES IN MVC NO.174/2018

1. Whether the petitioners prove that accident dated 03.03.2018 was due to rash and negligence of driver of vehicle bearing No.AP-37/TA-8988 and that as which deceased Pakirappa sustained fatal injuries and died as alleged?

2. Whether petitioners are entitled for award of compensation. If so, from whom?

3. What order or award?

10. In order to substantiate their claim, the claimant

No.1 in MVC.No.172/2018, the wife of the deceased examined

herself as PW.1 and wife of the deceased Pakkirappa

/claimant No.1 in MVC.No.174/2018 got examined herself as

PW.2 and examined two other witnesses as PWs.3 and 4 and

got marked documents at Exs.P-1 to P-22. On the other

hand, the respondent examined the officer of the insurance

company as RW.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.R-1

and R-4.

11. The Tribunal, on the basis of the pleadings,

evidence and material on record held that the accident

occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of

the driver of the said lorry bearing registration No.AP-37/TA-

8988, due to which the deceased Sagar and Pakkirappa

succumbed to the injuries that occurred on 03.08.2018 and

fastened the liability upon the insurance company and

awarded a compensation of Rs.15,82,000/- in

MVC.No.172/2018 under the following heads:

1. Loss of dependency Rs.15,12,000/-

2. Transportation and Funeral Rs.15,000/-

expenses

3. Loss of consortium Rs.40,000/-

    4.     Loss of estate                       Rs.15,000/-
                            Total           Rs.15,82,000/-

And in MVC.No.174/2018, the Tribunal awarded a sum of

Rs.16,82,800/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from

the date of petition till the date of realization under the

following heads:

1. Loss of dependency Rs.16,12,800/-

2. Transportation and Funeral Rs.15,000/-

           expenses
    3.     Loss of consortium                   Rs.40,000/-
    4.     Loss of estate                       Rs.15,000/-
                            Total           Rs.16,82,800/-

12. Being unsatisfied with the award of compensation

by the Tribunal in both the petitions, the claimants in claim

petitions in MVC.No.172/2018 and 174/2018 are in appeal

before this Court.

13. Heard learned counsel for the appellants/

claimants and learned counsel for the respondent/insurance

company.

14. Learned counsel for the appellants in both the

appeals would contend that the income of the deceased taken

by the Tribunal is not as per the Lok-adalat guidelines and the

future prospects to be added as per the dictum of the Apex

Court. On this ground they sought to enhance the

compensation.

15. Per contra, learned counsel for the

respondent/insurance company would contend that the award

of compensation by the Tribunal is fair, just and proper

compensation and the same does not call for any interference

at the hands of this Court.

16. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

given our anxious consideration to the rival contentions and

having perused the material on record, the only point that

arises for our consideration in both the appeals is:

"Whether the judgment and award of the Tribunal requires any interference insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned?

17. The date, time and occurrence of the accident are

not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the deceased

Sagar and Pakkirappa died in a fatal road traffic accident that

occurred on 03.08.2018. The controversy of course is with

regard to quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

In MFA.No.201067/2019:

18. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is

concerned, the Tribunal has taken the notional income of the

deceased at Rs.8,000/- as there was no documents produced

by the claimants to show the actual income of the deceased

that they were earning Rs.12,000/- per month. As per the

Karnataka State Legal Services Guidelines, when the

claimants fail to produce any document to show the actual

income of the deceased, the notional income as per the

Lok-adalat guidelines need to be considered. The accident is

of the year 2018 and considering the notional income as per

the guidelines, the notional income of Rs.11,750/- is taken.

Adding 40% to it, a sum of Rs.16,450/- is awarded towards

future prospects. (11,750 + 40% i.e.,4,700 = 16,450/-) in view

of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi

[(2017)16 SCC 680] (Pranay Sethi) and deducting 1/4th

towards the personal expenses of the deceased and applying

the multiplier 15 considering the age of the deceased as 38

years, the loss of dependency would come to Rs.22,20,750/-

(Rs.16,450 x 12 x 15 x ¾).

19. In view of United India Insurance Company

Limited vs. Satinder Kaur and others [(2020) ACJ 3076]

(Satinder Kaur) and Magma General Insurance Company

Limited vs. Nanu Ram [(2018) 18 SCC 130] (Magma

General Insurance Company Limited), the dependents are

four in number and hence, (Rs.40,000/- each x 4) it would

come to Rs.1,60,000/- under the head loss of filial, spousal

and parental consortium. Under the head loss to estate, the

claimants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- and under the head

funeral and obsequies ceremony the claimants are entitled to

Rs.15,000/-. In all the claimants are entitled for compensation

of Rs.24,10,750/- under the following heads:

1. Loss of dependency Rs.22,20,750/-

2. Loss of consortium Rs.1,60,000/-

    3.     Loss of estate                         Rs.15,000/-
    4.     Funeral      &     obsequies           Rs.15,000/-
           ceremony
                            Total            Rs.24,10,750/-

20. The Tribunal has already awarded a sum of

Rs.15,82,000/- in the claim petition and after deducting the

same from the compensation awarded in this Court i.e.,

Rs.24,10,750/-, it would come to Rs.8,28,750/-. Hence, the

claimants in MFA.No.201067/2019 is entitled for an enhanced

compensation of Rs.8,28,750/- with interest at the rate of 6%

per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

In MFA.No.201069/2019:

21. The Tribunal, in MVC.No.174/2018, has taken the

notional income of the deceased as Rs.8000/- as against the

continuation of the claimants deceased was earning

Rs.14,000/- P.M. As there are no documents to show the

actual income of the deceased, as per the Lokadalat

guidelines for the accident that occurred in the year 2018 at

Rs.11,750/- Adding 40% to it, a sum of Rs.16,450/- is awarded

towards future prospects. (11,750 + 40% i.e.,4,700 = 16,450/-)

in view of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

of Pranay Sethi and deducting 1/4th towards the personal

expenses of the deceased and applying the multiplier 16

considering the age of the deceased as 33 years, the loss of

dependency would amount to Rs.23,68,800/- (Rs.16,450 x 12

x 16 x ¾).

22. In view of dictum of Satinder Kaur and Magma

General Insurance Company Limited supra, the dependents

being four in number, a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- (Rs.40,000 each

x 4) is awarded under the head loss of filial, spousal and

parental consortium. Under the head loss to estate, the

claimants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- and under the head

funeral and obsequies ceremony the claimants are entitled to

Rs.15,000/-. Thus, the claimants are entitled for

compensation of Rs.25,58,800/- under the following heads:

1. Loss of dependency Rs.23,68,800/-

2. Loss of consortium Rs.1,60,000/-

    3.     Loss of estate                          Rs.15,000/-
    4.     Funeral      &     obsequies            Rs.15,000/-
           ceremony
                            Total             Rs.25,58,800/-

23. The Tribunal has already awarded a sum of

Rs.16,82,800/- in the claim petition and after deducting the

same from the compensation awarded by this Court i.e.,

Rs.25,58,800/-, it would come to Rs.8,76,000/-. Hence, the

claimants in MFA.No.201069/2019 are entitled for an

enhanced compensation of Rs.8,76,000/- with interest at the

rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of

realization.

24. Thus, the point framed for consideration in both

the appeals is answered in the affirmative in favour of the

claimants.

25. In the result, we pass the following:

ORDER

(i) MFA.No.201067/2019 and MFA.No.201069/2019

are hereby allowed in part.

(ii) The claimants in MFA.No.201067/2019 (MVC.

No.172/2018) are entitled for an enhanced

compensation of Rs.8,28,750/- and the claimants

in MFA. No.201069/2019 (MVC.No.174/2018) are

entitled for an enhanced compensation of