Karnataka High Court
Smt.Mahadevi vs Smt.Neelavva on 10 February, 2022
Bench: S G Pandit, Anant Ramanath Hegde
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
M.F.A. No. 103397/2016 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.MAHADEVI W/O SHANKAR GANIGER
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE
2. ROOPA D/O SHANKAR GANIGER
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT
3. SUPRIYA D/O SHANKAR GANIGER
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT
ALL ARE R/AT: NEAR JOSHI MANGAL KARYALAYA
MADIHAL, DHARWAD-580007.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SIDDAPPA.S.SAJJAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT.NEELAVVA W/O SHIVAPUTRAPPA
AMMINABHAVI, AGE: MAJOR
OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: AMMINABHAVI ONI
BHARIDEVERAKOPPA, HUBUBALLI
TQ: HUBUBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
OPPOSITE HEAD POST OFFICE
DHARWAD-580001.
...RESPONDENTS
2
(BY SRI. C.V.ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R2,
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.12.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.850/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND MEMBER ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, DHARWAD, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION
FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR
ORDERS THIS DAY, S.G. PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Though the appeal is listed for orders, with consent of both
sides, appeal is taken up for final disposal.
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 31.12.2015 passed in MVC No.850/2013 on the file of the
learned 1st Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT., Dharwad
(for short, 'Tribunal').
3. The claimants-mother and sisters of deceased Satish
Ganiger filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the accidental
death of deceased Satish Ganiger, which took place on
14.09.2013 involving Maruti Omni Car bearing registration
No.KA-25/Z-3989. It is stated that the deceased was aged about
21 years as on the date of the accident and was working in a
private company, earning Rs.9,000/- per month. Respondent
No.2-Insurance Company appeared and filed its statement
denying the claim petition averments. Further, it is contended
that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and
effective driving license as on the date of the accident. The
claimant No.1-mother examined herself as PW1 and the
documents Ex.P1 to 13 were marked.
4. The Tribunal on consideration of the material on
record, awarded compensation on the following heads with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
Loss of love and affection ` 75,000.00
Loss of estate. ` 75,000.00
Transportation of body of deceased and ` 25,000.00
funeral expenses.
Medical expenses. ` 16,400.00
Loss of dependency. ` 6,48,000.00
Total ` 8,39,400.00
While awarding the amount of compensation, Tribunal
assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month,
deducted 50% of the assessed income towards personal
expenses and adopted multiplier of '18'.
5. We have heard Sri Siddappa S.Sajjan, learned
counsel for the appellants-claimants and Sri C.V.Angadi, learned
counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
deceased was aged 21 years at the time of accident. The
deceased was working at private company and was earning
salary of Rs.9,000/- per month. But the Tribunal ignoring Ex.P9-
salary certificate, determined income of the deceased at
Rs.6,000/- per month. Learned counsel would submit that taking
note of Ex.P9, he prays for assessing the income of the deceased
at Rs.9,000/- per month. Further, he submits that the Tribunal
failed to award any compensation on the head of future
prospects, which the claimants would be entitled to at 40% of
the assessed income as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and
Others1. It is further submitted that claimants would be entitled
for consortium of Rs.40,000.00 each as held by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd Vs Nanu Ram
and Others2. Thus, he prays for enhancement of compensation
by allowing the appeal.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2-
Insurance Company submits that the income assessed by the
Tribunal is proper and correct. He further submits that to prove
Ex.P9-salary certificate, no person is examined on behalf of the
employee. It is also submitted that compensation awarded on
the head of loss of love and affection, loss of estate,
transportation of dead body and funeral expenses by the
Tribunal is on higher side. Thus, he prays for modification of the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
8. The accident that had taken place on 14.09.2013
and the accidental death of one Satish Ganiger involving Maruti
Omni Car bearing Reg.No.KA-25/Z-3989 is not in dispute in this
appeal. So also, the multiplier of '18' applied and deduction of
(AIR 2017 SC 5157)
(2018 ACJ 2782)
50% towards personal expenses of the deceased taken by the
Tribunal is also not in dispute. The Tribunal assessed income of
the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month, which is on lower side.
Ex.P9-salary certificate produced by the claimants is not proved
in accordance with law by examining the author of the said
document nor any person or representative from the employee is
examined, hence the same cannot be taken note of. Since, the
accident is of the year 2013, this Court and the Lok-Adalats,
while settling the accidental claims of the year 2013, would
normally assess the notional income at Rs.7,000/- per month.
Thus, income of the deceased is determined at Rs.7,000/- per
month. The appellants stated that the Tribunal failed to award
any compensation on the head of future prospects. The Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), has held that
wherever the deceased was aged below 40 years, the claimants
would be entitled for adding 40% of the assessed income
towards future prospects. Hence, we deem it appropriate to
award 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects.
Claimants No.1 to 3 would be entitled for loss of consortium of
Rs.40,000/- each.
9. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under
the head transportation of dead body and funeral expenses and
loss of estate needs to be modified. The award of compensation
on the head of medical expenses is not disturbed. Thus, the
claimants are entitled for the following modified compensation:
Loss of dependency ` 10,58,400.00
(7,000 + 40% = 9,800)
9,800 x 12 x 18 x 50% = 10,58,400.00
Loss of consortium 1,20,000.00
(40,000 x 3)
Transportation of dead body and funeral ` 15,000.00
expenses
Loss of estate ` 15,000.00
Medical expenses ` 16,400.00
Total ` 12,24,800.00
10. Thus, the claimants are entitled for total
compensation of Rs.12,24,800/- as against Rs.8,39,400/- with
interest at 6% p.a.
11. In the result, we pass the following order.
ORDER
The appeal is allowed in part. Consequently, the impugned
judgment and award dated 31.12.2015 passed in M.V.C.
No.850/2013 by the learned 1st Addl. Senior Civil Judge and
Addl. MACT., Dharwad is modified to the above extent.
The appellants-claimants are entitled to a total
compensation of Rs.12,24,800/- as against Rs.8,39,400/- with
interest at 6% p.a.
The apportionment, deposit and disbursement shall be
made as per the award of the Tribunal.
Draw modified award accordingly.
No order as to costs.
Pending applications, if any, do not survive for
consideration and accordingly, they are disposed of.
SD/-
JUDGE
SD/-
JUDGE
am.
