Karnataka High Court
The Branch Manager vs Meena W/O Late Anil Savanth And Ors on 14 February, 2022
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar, V Srishananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SHRISHANANDA
M.F.A. NO.200739/2021 (MV)
BETWEEN
THE BRANCH MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
S.S. FRONT ROAD BIJAPUR,
NOW REPRESENTED BY
ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI S. S. ASPALLI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1 . MEENA W/O LATE ANIL SAVANTH
AGE. 44 YRS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD.
2 . KAVITHA D/O LATE ANIL SAVANTH
AGE. 30 YRS, OCC. STUDENT.
3 . BHAGYASHREE D/O LATE ANIL SAVANTH
AGE. 28 YRS. OCC. STUDENT.
2
4 . MAYUR S/O LATE ANIL SAVANTH
AGE. 18 YRS, OCC. STUDENT.
5 . MAHADEV S/O NAGANNA SAVANTH
AGE. 76 YRS, OCC.
6 . RUKMINI W/O MAHADEV SAVANT
AGE. 66 YRS., OCC.
ALL R/O. TAJPUR, TQ & DIST: BIJAPUR
7 . RAZAK S/O USMAN SHAIK
AGE. MAJOR, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. HIVARE, TQ. MALSHIRAS,
DIST. SOLAPUR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI KOUJALAGI C. L., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R6;
NOTICE TO R7 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO
CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN MVC NO.1055/2014 ON THE
FILE OF THE IV ADDL. DIST. JUDGE AND MACT-XII DATED
06.07.2020 AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 06.07.2020 IN MVC NO.1055/2014 PASSED BY THE IV
ADDL. DIST. JUDGE AND MACT-XIII, VIJAYAPUR BY
ALLOWING THE ABOVE APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal by the insurance company is directed against
the impugned judgment and award dated 06.07.2020 passed in
MVC No.1055/2014 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
No.XIII and IV Additional District Judge, Vijayapur (for short 'the
Tribunal'), whereby, the Tribunal has awarded compensation in a
sum of Rs.27,73,350/- together with interest at 9% per annum in
favour of the claimants by way of compensation towards the
death of one Anil Sawanth, who died in a fatal road traffic
accident that occurred on 26.05.2014.
2. The occurrence of the accident and the coverage of
the offending vehicle by the insurance company are not in
dispute and the present appeal by the insurance company is
restricted/confined to the quantum of compensation awarded by
the Tribunal.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the
appellant/insurance company and the learned counsel for the
respondents/claimants and also perused the material on record.
4. In addition to reiterating the various contentions
urged in the memorandum of appeal and referring to the material
on record, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal insofar as
it relates to not deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses of the
deceased is incorrect, erroneous and contrary to the law laid
down by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and
National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and
Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. It is also contended
that the Tribunal failed to consider and appreciate the material
on record, which indicated that the deceased was also guilty of
contributory negligence and consequently, the finding recorded
by the Tribunal that the driver of the offending vehicle was solely
responsible for the accident on account of his rash and negligent
driving is also erroneous and perverse and the same deserve to
be set aside.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the
respondents/claimants, in addition to supporting the impugned
judgment and award submits that there is no merit in the appeal
and the same is liable to be dismissed.
6. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival
submissions and perused the material on record including the
impugned judgment and award.
7. Perusal of the impugned judgment and award would
indicate that the Tribunal has correctly and properly considered
and appreciated the entire material on record including the
pleadings and evidence of the parties and has rendered a
categorical finding that it was the driver of the offending vehicle
who was rash and negligent at the time of occurrence of the
accident. Upon re-appreciation and reevaluation of the material
on record, we are of the view that the impugned judgment and
award insofar as the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the
accident in question occurred solely on account of the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle does not
suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by
this Court in the present appeal.
8. Insofar as the finding recorded by the Tribunal with
regard to the compensation payable under the head 'loss of
dependency' is concerned, as rightly contended by the learned
counsel for the appellant/insurance company, the Tribunal failed
to consider and appreciate the well settled principles of law
governing grant of compensation under the head 'loss of
dependency' as enunciated by the Apex Court in the cases of
Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi (supra), wherein, the Apex
Court has clearly held that 1/4th is to be deducted towards
personal expenses of the deceased in the event the number of
claimants/dependents are between 4 to 6 persons. Under these
circumstances, in the light of the law laid down by the Apex
Court in the aforesaid decisions, the compensation to be
awarded towards loss of dependency deserves to be reworked
as hereunder:
Rs.11,508+30%(Rs.3452.4) = 14,960/-x12x14=
Rs.25,13,347/-. If 1/4th is deducted, it comes to Rs.6,28,336.8.
Thus, the compensation towards loss of dependency comes to
Rs.18,85,010/- (Rs.25,13,347 - Rs.6,28,336.8/-).
9. Insofar as the contention urged by the learned
counsel for the appellant/insurance company that the interest at
9% per annum is excessive is concerned, in the special/peculiar
facts and circumstances of the instant case, we do not wish to
interfere with the finding of the Tribunal insofar as grant of
interest is concerned.
10. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
The appeal is hereby partly allowed.
The impugned judgment and award dated 06.07.2020
passed in MVC No.1055/2014 is hereby modified. The
respondents/claimants are held to be entitled to compensation in
a sum of Rs.21,55,010/- together with interest at 9% per annum
from the date of claim petition till realization as against
Rs.27,73,350/- awarded by the Tribunal.
The amount in deposit, if any, is directed to be transferred
to the Tribunal for disbursement.
The apportionment and disbursement of the compensation
as modified by this Court would be as per the directions issued
by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment and award.
In view of disposal of main appeal, pending application, if
any, does not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
Srt
