Karnataka High Court
Suresh And Ors vs Shivaputrappa And Anr on 23 February, 2022
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar, K S Hemalekha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD 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.201346/2019 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. Suresh S/o. Basavantraya @ Basavaraj Biradar,
Aged 20 years, Occ: Education,
2. Prabhugoud S/o Basavantray @ Basavaraj Biradar,
Aged 17 years, Occ: Education,
3. Rajkumar S/o Basavantraya @ Basavaraj Biradar,
Aged: 16 years, Occ: Education.
Appellants No.2 to 3 are minors R/by their minor
Guardian Natural mother appellant No.4.
4. Boramma W/o Basavantraya @ Basavaraj Biradar,
Aged 49 years, Occ: Nil,
5. Basavantraya @ Basavaraj Biradar,
Aged 69 years, Occ: Nil,
All are R/o. Cheeraladdini,
Tq: Basavana-Bagewadi,
Dist: Vijayapur-586 101.
... Appellants
(By Sri Gopalkrishna.B.Yadav, Advocate)
2
AND:
1. Shivaputrappa
S/o Basavantappa Narasaraddi,
Age: 49 years, Occ: Business @ Vehicle Owner
R/o. Unnibhavi, Tq: Basavana-Bagewadi,
Dist: Vijayapur-586 101.
2. The Branch Manager,
United Insurance Company Limited,
R/o P.B.No.60 Sangam Building,
Near SS Road, Vijayapur-586 101.
... Respondents
(Sri. Sudarshan M., Advocate for R2;
Notice to R1 is dispensed with)
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, praying to allow
the appeal and modify the judgment and award dated
05.11.2018 in MVC No.1368/2015 on the file of Senior
Civil Judge and MACT-IX, Basavana-Bagewadi by
enhancing the compensation as claimed in the claim
petition.
This appeal coming on for orders this day,
K.S. Hemalekha J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
The claimants have preferred this appeal, seeking
enhancement of compensation by assailing the judgment
and award dated 05.11.2018 passed in MVC No.1368/2015
by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT-IX, Basavana-
Bagewadi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for
short).
2. The claimants filed a claim petition under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short
'M.V. Act') before the Tribunal, claiming compensation of
Rs.24,00,000/- on account of death of one Ramu @
Ramesh S/o Basavantray Biradar in a road traffic accident,
contending that on 08.07.2015 at about 11.00 p.m., when
the deceased Ramu @ Ramesh along with one
Ramanagouda were proceeding on a motorcycle bearing
Reg.No.KA-28/S-1649 towards Muttagi cross to NTPC Road
and when they reached Malaji land, a Tipper bearing Reg.
No.KA-28/A-1371 came from apposite direction in a rash
and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle,
due to which the deceased died on the spot. The deceased
Ramu @ Ramesh was a bachelor, aged about 25 years and
hale and healthy and earning Rs.12,000/- per month by
doing coolie work. The claimants are the brothers and
parents of the deceased, who were depending upon the
income of the deceased.
3. On issuance of notice by the Tribunal,
respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared and filed their written
statements.
4. Respondent No.1 contended that he is the
owner of the tipper vehicle and the driver had valid and
requisite driving licence as on the date of the accident. He
contended that the compensation claimed by the claimants
is exorbitant and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
5. Respondent No.2 - insurance company contended
that the insurance policy in respect of the tipper vehicle is
subject to the terms and conditions enumerated as per the
provisions of M.V. Act. It is further contended that there
was no contributory negligence on the part of the driver of
the tipper vehicle and the accident occurred due to the
sole negligent riding of the deceased and the deceased
was not holding valid and effective driving licence on the
date of the accident. On these grounds, sought to absolve
the liability.
6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,
the Tribunal framed the following:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioners prove that, on
08.07.2015 at about 11.00 p.m. when
deceased Ramu and his relative were going
on motorcycle bearing No.KA-28/S-1649
towards Kamanakeri, one tipper bearing
No.KA-29/A-1371 came from Muttagi side
in great speed and in rash and negligent
manner and dashed to the motorcycle rider
causing accident due to which deceased
Ramu Biradar sustained grievous injuries
and died on the spot?
2. Whether petition is bad for non joinder of
necessary parties?
3. Whether the respondent No.2 proves that
the driver of offending insured vehicle and
also the deceased i.e. rider of motorcycle
bearing Reg.No.KA-28/S-1649 were not
possessing valid and effective Driving
License at the time of alleged accident,
hence respondent No.2 is not liable to pay
compensation?
4. Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation? If so, how much and from
whom?
5. What order or award?
7. In order to substantiate their case, claimant
No.5-the father of the deceased examined himself as PW.2
and two witnesses as PWs.1 and 3 and got marked 13
documents as Exs.P1 to P13. On the other hand, the
respondents did not adduce any evidence, but got marked
the insurance policy as 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 Tipper bearing Reg.No.KA-28/A-1371 and due to the
impact, the deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained
by him on 08.07.2015 and awarded a compensation of
Rs.6,42,000/-along with interest at the rate of 9% per
annum from the date of petition till realization under the
following heads:
Towards loss of dependency Rs.6,12,000/-
Towards loss of consortium --
Towards loss to estate Rs.15,000/-
Towards transportation and Rs.15,000/-
funeral expenses
Total Compensation Rs.6,42,000/-
9. Being not satisfied with the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants have
preferred the present appeal.
10. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants
and learned counsel for respondent No.2-insurance
company and perused the material on record.
11. Sri Gopalkrishna B. Yadav, learned counsel for
the appellants would contend that the deceased was hale
and healthy, aged about 25 years at the time of accident
and was working as coolie and earning Rs.12,000/- per
month and that the notional income taken by the Tribunal
at Rs.6,000/- per month is much on the lower side and
thus, the compensation awarded under the head 'loss of
dependency' by the Tribunal is also on the lower side. It is
specifically contended that the compensation awarded
under the conventional head is very much meager and
needs to be enhanced.
12. Per contra, Sri Sudarshan M., 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 only point that arises for consideration in this
appeal is,
Whether the judgment and award passed by
the Tribunal requires interference insofar as
quantum is concerned?
14. The fact that Ramu @ Ramesh succumbed to
the injuries sustained by him in the accident that occurred
on 08.07.2015 due to the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the Tipper bearing Reg. No.KA-28/A-1371 is not
in dispute. However, the controversy is with regard to the
quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
15. The accident has occurred in the year 2015
and the deceased was working as a coolie and was earning
Rs.12,000/- per month as per the contention of the
claimants. The Tribunal was not justified in taking the
notional income of the deceased only at Rs.6,000/- per
month. Even assuming that the claimants have not
produced any evidence to show the income of the
deceased, as per the guidelines of the Karnataka State
Legal Services Authority, the notional income for the
accidents occurred in the year 2015 is to be taken at
Rs.8,000/- per month. Hence, considering the income of
the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month, adding 40% i.e.,
Rs.3,200/- 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, totaling to Rs.11,200/-,
deducting ½ of it towards personal expenses of the
deceased since he was bachelor and applying the multiplier
of 17 since the deceased was aged 28 years, the total
compensation payable towards loss of dependency would
come to Rs.11,42,400/- (Rs.11,200 x 12 x 17 x ½).
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 five in number i.e., the brothers and parents of
the deceased would be entitled to Rs.40,000/- each
towards loss of filial consortium amounting to
Rs.2,00,000/-. Further, the appellants are entitled to a
sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/-
towards funeral and obsequies ceremony.
17. Thereby, the appellants are entitled for total
compensation under various heads as under:
1. Towards loss of dependency Rs.11,42,400/-
2. Towards loss of filial consortium Rs.2,00,000/-
3. Towards loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
4. Towards funeral and obsequies Rs.15,000/-
ceremony
Total Rs.13,72,400/-
18. The Tribunal has already awarded
compensation of Rs.6,42,000/-. Hence, after deducting the
same, the appellants are entitled for enhanced
compensation of Rs.7,30,400/- (Rs.13,72,400/- less
Rs.6,42,000/-). The Tribunal has awarded interest at the
rate of 9% p.a. However, this Court as well as the Tribunal
would regularly award the interest at 6% p.a. Hence, we
deem it just and appropriate to award the interest at 6%
p.a. on the enhanced compensation.
19. In view of the same, the point raised for
consideration is answered in the affirmative.
20. In the result, we pass the following
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed in part.
ii) The judgment and award dated 05.11.2018
passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.1368/2015
is hereby modified.
iii) The appellants/claimants are entitled for
enhanced compensation of Rs.7,30,400/- 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 compensation amount with
updated interest within a period of eight weeks
from the date of receipt of a certified copy of
this judgment.
vi) Parties to bear their respective costs.
vii) Registry is directed to transmit the Trial Court
records forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SMP/LG
