Karnataka High Court
Parwati And Ors vs Arjun Siddappa Dodamani And Anr on 21 February, 2022
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar, K S Hemalekha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST 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.201572/2021 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. Parwati W/o Kareppa @ Kariyappa Teggi @ Taggi,
Age: 37 years, Occ: Household work,
R/o Mulawad, Tq. Basavana Bagewadi,
Dist: Mulawad, Tq. Basavana Bagewadi,
Dist: Vijayapura-586203.
2. Akshata D/o Kareppa @ Kariyappa Teggi @ Taggi,
Married, matrimonial name
Akshata W/o Umesh Karimani,
Age: 24 years, Occ: Household work,
R/o Mulawad, Tq. Basavana Bagewadi,
Dist: Vijayapura-586203.
3. Anilkumar Kareppa @ Kariyappa Teggi @ Taggi,
Age: 18 years, Occ: Student,
R/o Mulawad, Tq. Basavana Bagewadi,
Dist: Vijayapura-586203.
Since minor represented by his M/g. mother
Appellant No.1.
2
4. Lakkavva W/o Malappa Teggi @ Taggi,
Age: 56 years, Occ: Household work,
R/o Mulawad, Tq. Basavana Bagewadi,
Dist: Vijayapura-586203.
... Appellants
(By Sri Bapugouda Siddappa, Advocate)
AND:
1. Arjun Siddappa Dodamani,
Age: 47 years, Occ: Business,
R/o: Basava Nagar, Basavana Bagewadi,
Tq. Basavana Bagewadi,
Dist: Vijayapura-586203.
(Owner of Piaggio auto No.KA-28/B-9593)
2. The Manager Legal,
The Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
3rd floor, Asian Plaza, Timmapuri Circle,
Main Road, Kalaburagi-585102.
... Respondents
(By Smt. Preeti Patil Melkundi, Advocate for R2;
Notice to R1 is dispensed with v/o dated 01.02.2022)
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
03.08.2021 passed in MVC No.222/2019 on the file of the
Court of the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge and Member
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.XV, Vijayapura at
Vijayapura. And allow this appeal by enhancing the
compensation amount of Rs.19,03,600/- only as claimed
by the appellants before this Hon'ble court. In the interest
of justice and etc.
This appeal coming on for admission this day,
K.S. Hemalekha J., delivered the following:
3
JUDGMENT
The claimants have preferred this appeal seeking
enhancement of compensation by assailing the judgment
and award dated 03.08.2021 passed in MVC No.222/2019
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.XV, Vijaypur
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short).
2. The claimants filed a claim petition under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the
Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.35,35,000/- on
account of death of one Kareppa @ Kariyappa Teggi @
Taggi who succumbed to the injuries in a road traffic
accident that occurred on 05.11.2018, when the deceased
was traveling in Piaggio auto rickshaw bearing Reg.No.
KA-28/B-9593 and the driver of the auto rickshaw drove
the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner overlooking the
speed breaker due to which the deceased Kareppa who
was sitting in the rear portion of the auto fell down and
deceased succumbed to the injuries while undergoing
treatment. The deceased was hale and healthy aged about
38 years and was doing agriculture work and earning
Rs.15,000/- per month at the time of accident. The
claimants are the wife, children and mother of the
deceased and the deceased was the sole earning member
of the family.
3. On issuance of notice by the Tribunal,
respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared and filed their written
statements.
4. Respondent No.1 owner of the vehicle denied
that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent
driving of the auto driver and also denied the age,
avocation and income of the deceased. It was contended
that the vehicle is insured with the respondent No.2 and in
the event the court comes to the conclusion that the
accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of
the auto then the insurance company is liable to pay the
compensation.
5. Respondent No.2-insurance company filed a
written statement contending that the insured vehicle was
not involved in the said accident and the same is at the
behest of the claimants and the owner of the vehicle. It is
further contended that the driver of the insured vehicle did
not possess valid and effective driving licence to drive the
said vehicle and sought to absolve the liability.
6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,
the Tribunal has framed the following:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioners prove that
Kariayappa @ Kareppa S/o Malappa Teggi
@ Taggi died on account of injuries
sustained in a motor vehicle accident that
occurred on 05.11.2018 at about 3.30
p.m., near Government School, Hanchanal
village on Narasalagi Basavana Bagewadi
road due to rash and negligent driving of
the Piaggio auto bearing No.KA-28/B-9593
by its driver?
2. Whether the respondent No.2 proves
violation of terms and conditions of the
policy by respondent No.1?
3. Whether petitioners are entitled for the
compensation? If so, to what extent and
from whom?
4. What order or award?
7. In order to substantiate the case, claimant
No.1 -wife of the deceased examined herself as PW.1 and
the eye-witnesses as PW.2 and got marked 13 documents
as Exs.P1 to P13. On the other hand, respondent No.2 did
not lead any evidence, but got marked insurance policy at
Ex.R1.
8. On the basis of the pleadings, evidence and
material on record, the Tribunal held that the accident
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver
of the offending auto and the deceased Kariayappa died
due to the injuries suffered in the accident. The tribunal
awarded a compensation of Rs.16,31,400/- with interest at
the rate of 6% per annum under the following heads:
1. Loss of dependency Rs.14,10,120/-
2. Medical bills Rs.1,21,205/-
3. Loss of consortium Rs.50,000/-
4. Loss of filial love and Rs.20,000/-
affection
5. Funeral expenses and Rs.20,000/-
obsequies
6. Loss of estate Rs.10,000/-
Total Rs.16,31,325/-
9. The claimants, not being satisfied with the
quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal have
preferred the present appeal.
10. Heard the learned counsel for the
appellants/claimants, learned counsel for respondent No.2-
Insurance Company and perused the material on record.
11. Sri Bapugouda Siddappa, learned counsel for
the appellants would contend that the Tribunal has taken
the income of the deceased at Rs.11,750/- without
considering the actual income of the deceased, as the
deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month from
agriculture work. It is further contended that while
awarding compensation towards loss of dependency, the
Tribunal has not made provision for future prospects, as
the deceased was aged about 38 years and thus, awarding
of amount under the head 'loss of dependency' is on the
lower side. It is further contended that the compensation
awarded under the conventional heads viz., loss of
consortium, loss of love and affection, transportation of
dead body, funeral expenses and loss of estate and is also
on the lower side and requires to be enhanced.
12. Per contra, Smt. Preeti Patil Melkundi, learned
counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company would
contend that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
just and proper and the manner in which the Tribunal has
assessed the compensation would not call for any
interference.
13. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties, the following point would arise for consideration in
this appeal:
Whether the judgment and award of the
tribunal requires interference insofar as
quantum of compensation is concerned. ?
14. The fact that deceased Kariyappa succumbed
to the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident
that occurred on 05.11.2018 due to the rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the Auto bearing Reg.No.KA-28/B-
9593 is not in dispute. However, the controversy is with
regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal.
15. It is not in dispute that the deceased was doing
agriculture work, but has not produced any document to
show the actual income of the deceased. The Tribunal has
taken the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.11,750/-
as per the Lok-Adalat guidelines for the accident that
occurred in the year 2018, the notional income of the
deceased if no documents are produced is to be taken as
Rs.11,750/-. Taking the notional income of the deceased
as Rs.11,750/- and adding 40% i.e., Rs.4,700/- towards
future prospects as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs.
Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC
680, the total income of the deceased would be
Rs.16,450/- per month. After deducting 1/4th of it towards
personal expenses of the deceased and applying the
multiplier of 15 considering the age of the deceased as 38
years, the total compensation payable towards loss of
dependency would come to Rs.22,20,750/- (Rs.16,450 x
12 x 15 x 3/4).
16. In view of the dictum of the Honble Apex
Court in Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors. v.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in AIR 2020
SC 3076 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs.
Nanu Ram reported in 2018 ACJ 2782, the appellants,
who are four in numbers i.e., the wife, children and mother
of the deceased would be entitled to Rs.40,000/- each i.e.
Rs.1,60,000/- towards loss of spousal and parental
consortium. Further, the appellants are entitled to
Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/-
towards transportation of dead body, funeral and
obsequies ceremony. Insofar as the medical expenses is
concerned as against the bill the tribunal has granted
Rs.1,21,205/- and the same is undisturbed.
17. Thus, in all, the appellants are entitled for total
compensation of Rs.25,31,955/- as under:
1. Towards loss of dependency Rs.22,20,750/-
2. Medical bills Rs.1,21,205/-
3. Towards loss of spousal, filial Rs.1,60,000/-
and parental consortium
4. Towards loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
5. Towards transportation of Rs.15,000/-
dead body, funeral and
obsequies ceremony
Total Rs.25,31,955/
-
18. The Tribunal has already awarded a
compensation of Rs.16,31,400/-. Hence, after deducting
the same, the appellants are entitled for enhanced
compensation of Rs.9,00,555/- (Rs.25,31,955/- less
Rs.16,31,400/-) with interest at 6% per annum from the
date of petition till its realization. Accordingly, the point
raised for consideration is answered in the affirmative.
19. In the result, we pass the following
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed in part.
ii) The judgment and award dated 03.08.2021
passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.222/2019
is hereby modified.
iii) The appellants/claimants are entitled for the
enhanced compensation of Rs.9,00,555/- with
interest at 6% p.a. from the date of
petition till realization.
iv) The apportionment, deposit and release of the
enhanced compensation would be as per the
award of the Tribunal.
v) Respondent No.2-insurance company shall
deposit the enhanced compensation with
updated interest within a period of eight
weeks from the date of receipt of a certified
copy of the judgment.
vi) Parties to bear their respective costs.
vii) Registry is directed to transmit the Trial Court
Records forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SMP
