United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Sri.Sangappa S/O Erappa ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 321 Kant

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  DHARWAD BENCH

      DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

                        BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

      MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.105019/2019(MV)
                          C/W.
      MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.105020/2019(MV)

BETWEEN:

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BY ITS MANAGER,
STATION ROAD, HOSAPETE,
THROUGH ITS SR. DIVISIONAL MANAGER
PIN 583 201.
                                          ...APPELLANT
                                             (COMMON)
(BY SRI. RAVINDRA R. MANE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.    SRI.SANGAPPA
      S/O ERAPPA TUMMARAGUDDI
      AGE ABOUT 54 YEARS,
      OCC: AGRICULTURE,
      R/O: KURUBANAL,TQ: KUSHTAGI,
      DIST: KOPPAL PIN 583 277

2.    SRI.SHARANAPPA
      S/O SANGAPPA TUMMARAGUDDI,
      AGE ABOUT 26 YEARS,
      OCC: AGRICULTURE,
      R/O: KURUBANAL, TQ: KUSHTAGI,
      DIST: KOPPAL 583 277.
                            2




3.   SRI.SHRIKANTA
     S/O SANGAPPA TUMMARAGUDDI,
     AGE ABOUT 24 YEARS,
     OCC: AGRICULTURE,
     R/O: KURUBANAL,
     TQ: KUSHTAGI,
     DIST: KOPPAL, PIN 583 277.

4.   SRI.NINGAPPA
     S/O MAHADEVAPPA @ MAHADAPPA ONDAGANUR
     AGE 49 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
     R/O: GOODRIHAL, TQ: SURAPUR,
     DIST: KALABURAGI, NOW AT PILLEKAM NAGAR,
     MUDDEBIHAL, TQ: MUDDEBIHAL,
     DIST: VIJAYAPURA PIN 586 212.

5.   SRI.SIDDANAGOUDA
     S/O SANGANAGOUDA PATIL
     AGE 42 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
     R/O: PEERAPUR,TQ: MUDDEBIHAL,
     DIST: VIJAYAPURA, PIN 586 212.
                                        ...RESPONDENTS

(IN MFA NO.105019/2019)

(BY SRI. SHIVANAND MALASHETTI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;

R4 - SERVED; R5 - NOTICED DISPENSED WITH)

1. SRI.RUDRAPPA S/O VEERABHADRAPPA TUMMARAGUDDI AGE: ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KURUBANAL, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL.

2. SRI.SHARANAPPA S/O RUDRAPPA TUMMARAGUDDI AGE: ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KURUBANAL, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL.

3. SRI.VEERABHADRAPPA S/O RUDRAPPA TUMMARAGUDDI

AGE: ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KURUBANAL, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL.

4. SRI.PRABHURAJ S/O RUDRAPPA TUMMARAGUDDI AGE: ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KURUBANAL, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL.

5. SRI.NINGAPPA S/O MAHADEVAPPA @ MAHADAPPA ONDAGANUR, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O: GOODRIHAL, TQ: SURAPUR, DIST: KALABURAGI, NOW AT PILLEKAM NAGAR, MUDDEBIHAL, TQ: MUDDEBIHAL, DIST: VIJAYAPURA.

6. SRI.SIDDANAGOUDA S/O SANGANAGOUDA PATIL AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: PEERAPUR, TQ: MUDDEBIHAL, DIST: VIJAYAPURA.

... RESPONDENTS (IN MFA NO.105020/2019)

(BY SRI. SHIVANAND MALASHETTI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4;

R5 - SERVED; R6 - NOTICED DISPENSED WITH)

MFA NO.105019/2019 IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.08.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.206/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, KUSHTAGI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.16,04,200/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALISATION.

MFA NO.105020/2019 FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.08.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.207/2015 ON THE FILE

OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KUSHTAGI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.13,31,800/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALISATION.

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

COMMON JUDGMENT

The Insurer of the offending vehicle bearing

registration No.KA-28/M-0692 has preferred these

two appeals challenging the judgment and award

dated 23.08.2019 passed by the Court of Senior Civil

Judge and MACT, Kushtagi (hereinafter referred to as

'the Tribunal', for brevity), in MVC No.206/2015 and

207/2015 respectively, on the ground of quantum.

2. The undisputed facts of the case are;

On 02.02.2013, the deceased Kalakamma and

Smt.Ningamma along with others went to the

agricultural land for harvesting and when they were

walking on the roadside, the offending lorry, which

was driven by respondent No.1, came from Hospet

side on National Highway No.50 and dashed against

the deceased persons and as a result, the deceased

suffered serious injuries and ultimately succumbed to

the same. The claimants, who are the husband and

children of the said deceased ladies, had filed MVC

Nos.206/2015 and 207/2015 respectively, claiming

compensation under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988, towards the death of the

deceased in the road traffic accident that had taken

place on 02.02.2013.

The Tribunal had granted a compensation of

`16,04,200/- with interest at 6% per annum from the

date of petition till realisation to the claimants in

MVC No.206/2015 and a compensation of

`13,31,800/- with interest at 6% per annum from the

date of petition till realisation to the claimants in

MVC No.207/2015.

Being aggrieved by the quantum of

compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the Insurer is

before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the Insurer submits

that the claimants are all majors and the cause title

of the petitions would go to show that they are

agriculturists by avocation and therefore they are not

dependents on the deceased ladies. He submits that

the accident is of the year 2013 and therefore, in the

absence of acceptable evidence regarding the income

of the deceased, the notional income of the deceased

was required to be taken at `7,000/- per month as

per the income chart maintained by the Karnataka

State Legal Services Authority for the purpose of

disposal of the motor vehicle accident cases before

the Lok Adalath.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for

the claimants submits that the deceased were the

only ladies in both families and though the claimants

are majors and were agriculturists, they were entirely

dependent on the deceased for their food and other

household works. He has relied upon the judgment

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in support of his

contention in the case of National Insurance

Company Ltd. vs Birender reported in (2020) 11

SCC 356. He also contends that the compensation

awarded by the Tribunal under the conventional head

is on the lower side and therefore it cannot be said

that the Tribunal has awarded a higher compensation

to the claimants. Accordingly he prays to dismiss the

appeals.

5. I have carefully considered the rival

arguments and also perused the entire material

evidence available on record.

6. The claimants in both the appeals are the

husband and major sons of the deceased. As rightly

contended by the learned counsel for the Insurer,

from the perusal of the cause title, it is seen that the

claimants are agriculturist by occupation. However,

it may be noticed that there is no material on record

to show that, any one of the major sons of the

deceased was married and there was other lady

member in the family to take care of the household

works in their respective families. This Court cannot

loose sight of the fact that, in the villages normally

the ladies in the family take care of the entire

household work and the male members will be

completely dependent on them for the same. In both

these cases, the deceased women were able bodied

and the material on record would go to show that, on

the fateful date of accident, they were walking

towards their agricultural field at about 3:45 a.m. for

the purpose of harvesting. Therefore it cannot be

said that the claimants in these cases are not at all

dependent on the deceased, who were the sole

female members in their respective families.

7. In the judgment relied upon by the learned

counsel for the claimants reported in (2020) 11 SCC

356, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, major

sons of the deceased, who are married and gainfully

employed, also can maintain a claim petition under

Section 166 (1) (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

It is further held that, if it is proved that the major

sons though have an independent earning for their

livelihood, if they are still dependent on the deceased

mother, they are entitled to maintain the claim

petition. A reading of Section 166 (1) (c) of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, would make it very clear

that, one or any of the legal representatives of the

deceased can move an application for compensation.

8. Under the circumstances, I am of the

considered view that there is no merit in the

contention of the learned counsel for the Insurer that

the claimants being majors, who have an independent

income of their own, cannot be considered as

dependents of the deceased and accordingly they are

not entitled to maintain the claim petition.

9. Insofar as the quantum of compensation

amount that is required to be awarded to the

claimants is concerned, in MFA No.105019/2019, the

claimants are the husband and major sons of the

deceased. The deceased was aged about 45 years at

the time of her death. The accident is of the year

2013 and therefore, the Tribunal in the absence of

evidence regarding income, ought to have taken a

notional income of the deceased at `7,000/- per

month and 1/3 of the income is required to be

deducted towards personal expenses of the

deceased. The proper multiplier applicable having

regard to the age of the deceased would be 14 and

25% of the income of the deceased is required to be

taken into consideration towards future prospects in

addition to the monthly income of `7,000/-. In the

said event, the monthly income of the deceased to be

taken for calculation of loss of dependency would be

`5,834/- [`8750 (7000+1750) - `2916 (1/3 of

8750)]. The claimants would be therefore entitled

for compensation of ` 9,80,000/- (5834 x 12 x 14 =

`9,80,112/- rounded off to `9,80,000) towards 'loss

of dependency'. Under the conventional heads, the

claimants are entitled for a sum of `1,50,000/- as per

the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs.

Nanu Ram and Others reported in (2018) 8 SCC

130, which would be inclusive of funeral expenses .

Therefore, totally the claimants are entitled for a

compensation of `11,30,000/- as against the sum of

`16,04,200/- awarded by the Tribunal.

10. Insofar as the compensation awarded in

MFA No.105020/2019, the claimants are husband and

major sons of the deceased and having regard to the

number of claimants the income that is required to be

deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased

would be 1/4 t h . The notional income of the deceased

is required to be taken at `7,000/- per month and

additional 10% of the said income is required to be

considered towards her future prospectus. The age

of the deceased according to the post-mortem report

is 55 years and hence the proper multiplier applicable

would be 11. In the said event, the monthly income

of the deceased to be taken for calculation of loss of

dependency would be `5,775/- [`7700 (7000+700) -

`1925 (1/4 of 7700)]. The claimants would be

therefore entitled for compensation of ` 7 ,62,300/-

(5775x 12 x 11) towards 'loss of dependency'. Under

the conventional heads, the claimants are entitled for

a sum of `1,90,000/-, which would be inclusive of

funeral expenses, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Magma General

Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Nanu Ram and Others

reported in (2018) 8 SCC 130. Therefore, totally the

claimants are entitled for a compensation of

`9,52,300/- as against the sum of `13,31,800/-

awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, I pass the

following:

ORDER

The appeals filed by the Insurance Company are

allowed in part.

The claimants in MVC No.206/2015 are entitled

for a compensation of `11,30,000/- as against the

sum of `16,04,200/- awarded by the Tribunal. The

claimants in MVC No.207/2015 are entitled for a

compensation of `9,52,300/- as against the sum of

`13,31,800/- awarded by the Tribunal. The

compensation amount awarded will carry interest at

6% per annum from the date of petition till

realisation.

The order passed by the Tribunal insofar as it

relates to apportionment, disbursement and deposit

etc., shall remain unaltered.

The amount in deposit in both the cases shall be

forthwith transferred to the Tribunal for the purpose

of disbursement. The balance compensation amount,

if any, to be deposited by the Insurance Company,

shall be deposited before the Tribunal, within a

period of six weeks from the date of receipt of

certified copy of this order. Registry shall return the

trial Court records.

Sd/-

JUDGE

gab