Karnataka High Court
Deepali vs Dr. Siddarth on 27 January, 2022
Bench: S G Pandit, Anant Ramanath Hegde
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
MFA NO.100823 OF 2016 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. DEEPALI W/O DHARANENDRA LODAYA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD
WORK, R/O NO.5, YEGUSA APARTMENT,
PAWAR CHAWL, KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI,
TQ:HUBBALLI, DIST:DHARWAD.
2. YOGITA D/O DHARANENDRA LODAYA
AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT,
SINCE MINOR REP. BY HER NATURAL
GUARDIAN MOTHER THE APPELLANTN NO.1
DEEPALI W/O DHARANENDRA LODAYA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD
WORK R/O NO.5, YEGUSA APARTMENT,
PAWAR CHAWL, KESHWAPUR HUBBALLI,
TQ:HUBBALLI, DIST:DHARWAD.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. G.I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. DR. SIDDARTH S/O DINESH LODAYA
AGED 38 YEARS, OCC:DENTIST,
R/O NO.956-I, SMILE ALIGN,
DENTAL CLINIC, 5TH 'A' MAIN,
2
1ST BLOCK, BENGALURU.
2. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
BY ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
SBI ZONAL OFFICE, KUSUGAL ROAD,
KESHVAPUR, HUBBALLI,
TQ:HUBBALLI, DIST:DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GANGADHAR S HOSAKERI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
(R1-NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING THIS HON'BLE COURT
TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.8.2015
MADE IN MVC NO.453/2013 PASSED BY THE II ADDL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT, HUBBALLI AND
FURTHER AWARD THE COMPENSATION AS PRAYED FOR BY
THE APPELLANTS IN THEIR CLAIM PETITION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
S.G. PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Though this appeal is listed for admission, it is taken
up for final disposal, with the consent of learned counsel
for both the parties.
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 22.08.2015 passed in MVC No.453/2013
on the file of the learned II Addl. Senior Civil Judge & Addl.
MACT, Hubli (for short, 'Tribunal').
3. The claimants, who are the wife and minor
daughter of deceased Dharanendra Lodaya filed a claim
petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
seeking compensation for the accidental death of deceased
Dharanendra Lodaya, which took place on 16.12.2012
involving Maruti Swift Dezire Car bearing registration
No.KA-01/ME-1862. It is stated that the deceased was
aged about 33 years as on the date of the accident and
was Professional Accountant thereby earning Rs.30,000/-
per month.
4. On appearance, respondents 1 and 2 filed
objections. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company denying
the averments of the claim petition contended that the
accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of
husband of 1st claimant i.e. deceased Dharanendra. The
claimants in order to prove their case examined PW1 to
PW4 and got marked the documents as
Exs.P1 to P24, whereas respondent/Insurance Company
marked policy copy as Ex.R1. The Tribunal on appreciation
of the material evidence on record awarded total
compensation of Rs.8,65,000/- with interest at 6% per
annum from the date of petition till date of realization and
directed insurer to deposit the compensation amount.
5. While awarding the above compensation, the
Tribunal assessed the notional income of the deceased at
Rs.5,000/- per month, applied multiplier of 17 and
deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the
deceased. The claimants not being satisfied with the
quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal are
before this Court praying for enhancement of
compensation.
6. Heard Sri. G.I. Gachchinamath, learned
counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants and Sri.
Gangadhar S Hosakeri, learned counsel for
respondent/Insurance Company and perused the appeal
papers along with original records.
7. Sri. G.I. Gachchinamath, learned counsel for
the appellants/claimants would contend that the notional
income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at
Rs.5,000/- per month is on the lower side. It is submitted
that the deceased was Professional Accountant and was
earning Rs.30,000/- per month and to establish the same,
Ex.P14 to P19 are placed on record. But the Tribunal
failed to appreciate those documents while assessing the
income of the deceased. Thus, taking note of Exs.P14 to
P19, learned counsel prays for re-assessing the income of
the deceased. He further submits that the Tribunal failed
to award compensation on the head of future prospects,
which the claimants would be entitled to 40% of the
assessed income as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay
Sethi & Others, 2017(16) SCC 680. Thus, he prays for
allowing the appeal.
8. Per contra, Sri. Gangadhar S Hosakeri, learned
counsel appearing for respondent No.2-Insurance
Company supporting the impugned judgment and award
would submit that the Tribunal committed an error in
applying multiplier of 17, when the deceased was aged 32
years as per Ex.P3-PM report, appropriate multiplier would
be '16' as per decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Sarla Verma & Others Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Another, 2009 ACJ 1298. It is his
submission that the documents placed on record would not
indicate the exact income of the deceased. On the other
hand, those documents are VAT Registration Form in
respect of B.B. Enterprises and Profit and Loss account and
Balance sheet in respect of B.B. Enterprises, which are not
relating to the deceased. He further submits that in the
absence of cogent documents to establish the income of
the deceased, the Tribunal has rightly assessed notional
income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month. Thus,
he prays for dismissal of the appeal.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for both the
parties and on perusal of the appeal papers including the
original records, the only point that would fall for
consideration in this appeal is as to, whether the claimants
would be entitled for enhancement of compensation?
10. Our answer to the above point is in the
affirmative for the following reasons.
11. The accident which took place on 16.12.2012
resultant death of deceased Dharanendra is not in dispute
in the present appeal. The claimants are before this Court
praying for enhancement of compensation. The notional
income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at
Rs.5,000/- per month is on the lower side. The claimants
placed on record Ex.P14 to P19. But, those documents
would not indicate the exact income of the deceased, who
is stated to be working as Professional Account. Moreover,
those documents would not relate to the deceased and it
relates to M/s. B.B. Enterprises. In the absence of any
corroborative documents, Ex.P14 to P19 would not inspire
confidence of this Court. However, in the absence of any
documents to establish the income of the deceased, this
Court and Lok Adalath, while settling the accidental claims
of the year 2012 would assess the notional income of the
deceased at Rs.6,500/- per month, taking note of the chart
prepared by KSLSA based on various factors including the
minimum wage fixed. In the instant case also, taking note
of the same, we deem it appropriate to assess the notional
income of the deceased at Rs.6,500/- p.m.
12. Further, the Tribunal committed an error in not
awarding compensation on the head of future prospects.
In the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that wherever the deceased was aged
below 40 years, the claimants would be entitled for
addition of 40% of the assessed income towards future
prospects. Therefore, in the instant case since the
deceased was aged 32 years, the claimants would be
entitled for addition of 40% of the assessed income
towards future prospects.
13. Further, the Tribunal committed an error in
adopting multiplier of 17. As per Ex.P3-PM report, the age
of the deceased was 32 years. Taking note of the same, as
held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla
Verma (supra), wherever deceased was between the age
of 31 to 35 years, proper multiplier would be '16'.
Deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the
deceased is just and proper. Thus, the claimants would be
entitled to compensation on the head of loss of
dependency at Rs.11,64,800/- (Rs.6,500 (income per
month) + Rs.2,600 (40% towards future income) = Rs.9,100 -
1/3 (Rs.3033) x 12 (months) x 16 (multiplier) = 11,64,798.72,
Rounded off to Rs.11,64,800/-).
14. It is noticed that the Tribunal committed grave
error in awarding compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- each
towards consortium and loss of love and affection.
Claimant No.1 being wife of the deceased would be entitled
to Rs.44,000/- towards spousal consortium and claimant
No.2 being minor daughter of the deceased would be
entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards parental consortium as
held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma
General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Nanu Ram and
Others, reported in 2018 ACJ 2782. Thus, the
compensation awarded on the head of consortium and loss
of love and affection at Rs.2,00,000/- is reduced to
Rs.84,000/- awarding on the head of spousal and parental
consortium, apart from Rs.30,000/- towards loss of estate
and funeral expenses.
15. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for
modified compensation on the following heads:
Sl.No. Particulars Amount
1. Loss of dependency Rs.11,64,800/-
Rs.6,500/- (income per month) +
Rs.2,600/- (40% towards future
income) = Rs.9,100 - 1/3
(Rs.3033) x 12 (months) x 16
(multiplier) = 11,64,798.72/-
Rounded off to Rs.11,64,800/-
2. Loss of estate & Funeral expenses Rs. 30,000/-
3. Spousal Consortium Rs. 44,000/-
4. Parental Consortium Rs. 40,000/-
Total Rs.12,78,800/-
16. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to total
compensation of Rs.12,78,800/- as against
Rs.8,65,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
17. Hence, we pass the following:
ORDER
a) The appeal is allowed in part.
b) The impugned judgment and award of
the Tribunal is modified to the extent
that the claimants are entitled to total
compensation of Rs.12,78,800/- as
against Rs.8,65,000/- awarded by the
Tribunal.
c) The enhanced compensation amount
will bear interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date of claim petition
till date of realization.
d) The apportionment, deposit and
disbursement of the enhanced
compensation amount shall be made
as per the award of the Tribunal.
e) Draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
JTR
