S M Shivanna S/O Late S Madaiah vs The Manager, Mahindra Freight
2022 Latest Caselaw 13 Kant

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                    DHARWAD BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

                               BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

       MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.20646/2013(MV)

BETWEEN:

1.     S. M. Shivanna
       S/o. late S. Madaiah
       Aged about 62 years

2.     R. Chandrakala
       W/o. S. M. Shivanna
       Aged about 52 years

       Both are residing at Purgali Village
       Mavalli Taluk, Mandya District.
                                                      ...APPELLANTS

(By Sri. Y. Lakshmikant Reddy, Advocate)

AND:

1.     The Manager
       Mr. Mahindra Freight
       Owner of the Lorry
       R/o. Plot No.51, Sector No.24
       Cidco Cement Godown
       Turbhe Navi Mumbai.

2.     The Manager
       M/s. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
       10003-E, 8, RIICO Industrial Area
       Sitapur, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
                                                    ...RESPONDENTS

(By Sri. S. K. Kayakamath, Advocate for R2 - through VC;
     Notice to R1 - dispensed with)
                                 2




      This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and
award dated 20.06.2012 passed in MVC No.569/2011 on the file
of Member, III-MACT, Ballari, partly allowing the claim petition
for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.

      This appeal coming on for Admission this day, the court
delivered the following:

                           JUDGMENT

The instant app eal is filed by the claimants being

not satisfied with the compensation amount award ed by

the Motor Accidents Claims Trib unal-III, Ballari

(hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal', for brevity) in

MVC No.569/2011, toward s the d eath of their son M. S.

Purushotham, who died in a road traffic accident that

had taken place on 07.01.2011.

2. The facts of the case that would be relevant

for the purpose of disposal of this app eal are:

The deceased M. S. Purushotham, who was the

son of the claimants, was proceeding from Hosp et to

Toranag allu in his motorcycle b earing No.KA-34/S-5251

on 07.01.2011 at about 8.30 pm. When he had

reached Kotaginahal cross on NH-63 road , Ballari,

respondent No.1 - driver, who was driving the lorry

bearing reg istration No.PB-05/M-6765, all of a sudden

stopped the lorry in the center of the road without any

signal or indicators and as a result, the b ike of the

deceased M. S. Purushotham dashed ag ainst the lorry

and he sustained severe injuries on his head and died

on his way to Jindal Sanjeevini Hospital. The d eceased

was ag ed about 28 years and he was working as a

Junior Manager in JSW Steel Limited , Toranagallu and

he was d rawing a salary of `36,055/- per month. The

claimants, who are the parents of the deceased having

lost their son, who was the source of their income for

their livelihood, had approached the Trib unal in MVC

No.569/2011 claiming compensation of `52,30,000/-.

Respondent No.3 before the Tribunal being the

Insurance Company had appeared and filed written

statement d enying the case of the petitioners in Toto.

The respond ents No.1 and 2 were placed ex-p arte. The

Tribunal vide its judgment and award dated

20.06.2012, had totally award ed a sum of `35,11,938/-

towards comp ensation to the claimants with interest at

6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of

deposit. Being not satisfied with the amount of

comp ensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants

have app roached this Court in this Miscellaneous First

Appeal.

     3.      Learned       counsel         for     the      claimants

Sri.Lakshmikanth         Reddy    has      submitted      b efore   this

Court that the deceased was ag ed about 28 years and

he had a permanent job in a private comp any and PW3,

who is his employer, has spoken to the said effect

before the Tribunal and therefore, the Trib unal ought

to have taken 50% of his income towards his future

prosp ects as against 30%. He submits that the

deceased was aged about 28 years and therefore, the

proper multip lier applicable was 17, whereas the

Tribunal has taken it as 13. He also submits that the

comp ensation award ed under the conventional heads is

also on the lower sid e and accordingly, prays to allow

the appeal.

4. Per contra, Sri. Kayakamath, learned counsel

app earing on b ehalf of the Insurance Company submits

that the Trib unal has erred in taking the income of the

deceased as per the salary slip. He submits that the

amount of `3,100/- paid towards monthly conveyance

and `1,500/- p aid towards Meal Voucher would not

enure to the benefit of the claimants as the same was

the allowance p aid to the employee and it cannot be

consid ered as a salary. However he does not dispute

that the Tribunal has erred in taking 30% of the income

of the deceased towards future p rospects and 13 as the

applicable multiplier.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the

arguments addressed by both sides and also p erused

the material on record .

6. It is not in dispute that the deceased was

working as a Junior Manag er in JSW Steel Limited,

Toranag allu. PW3, who is the employer, has been

examined by the claimants before the Tribunal to

demonstrate that the deceased was a permanent

employee of JSW Steel Limited and his salary

certificate has been produced as Ex.P6. As rightly

contend ed by the learned counsel Sri.Kayakamath, the

amount of `3,100/- and `1,500/- respectively p aid by

the employer to their employee towards Conveyance

Allowance and Meals Voucher can not b e consid ered as

the salary and the same would not enure to the b enefit

of the claimants and therefore, the Tribunal oug ht to

have deducted the said amount while considering the

monthly salary of the deceased . If the said amount of

`3,100 and `1,500/- is deducted from the monthly

salary of `36,055/-, the monthly income of the

deceased would be `31,455/-. From the said amount, a

sum of `2,000/- is required to be ded ucted towards

Income Tax as well as Professional Tax as observed by

the Tribunal. Therefore, the monthly income of the

deceased would be `29,455/-. Since the deceased had

a permanent employment and taking into consid eration

that he was ag ed about 28 years, as per the judgment

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National

Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported

in (2017) 16 SCC 680, additional 50% of the income

is req uired to b e add ed to the said amount, which

totally comes to `29,455+`14,727= `44,182.00. The

proper multiplier applicable in the case on hand would

be 17 as rightly contended by the learned counsel for

the appellants. As the d eceased was a b achelor, 50%

of the income is required to be deducted towards

personal expenses. Therefore, under the head 'loss of

dependency' the claimants would be entitled for

`45,06,56 4 /- [`22,091 (50% of `44,182) x 12 x 17] as `45,06,564

against ` 34,99,938/- award ed by the Tribunal.

7. The claimants are the p arents of the

deceased and therefore, under the conventional heads,

they are entitled for a sum of `1,50,000/- as against

`12,000/- award ed by the Tribunal, according to the

judgment of the Hon'b le Sup reme Court in the case of

Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Nanu Ram

and Others reported in (2018) 8 SCC 130.

8. Under the circumstances, I pass the

following:

ORDER

Appeal is allowed in part.

The claimants are totally entitled for `46,56,564/-

against `35,11,938/- awarded by the Tribunal. The

amount of comp ensation award ed would carry interest

at 6% p.a. The third respondent Insurance Company is

directed to deposit the comp ensation amount as

award ed by this Court within a p eriod of three months

from the d ate of receipt of certified copy of this order.

Sd/-

JUDGE

gab