Karnataka High Court
Premila W/O Kushalrao Akkasalgi vs Tippayya Swamy S/O Amrayya Swamy on 12 January, 2022
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar, K S Hemalekha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
MFA NO.200259/2017 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. Premila W/o Kushalrao Akkasalgi,
Age: 43 years, Occ: Household,
R/o Bhalki, Proper Dist. Bidar.
2. Kushal Rao S/o Lingappa Akkasalig,
Age: 48 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Bhalki, Proper Dist. Bidar-584 101.
... Appellants
(By Sri. Babu H. Metagudda, Advocate)
AND:
1. Tippayya Swamy S/o Amrayya Swamy,
Age: Major, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o. Dongapur, Tq: Bhalki,
Dist: Bidar - 584 101.
(Present owner of Tractor No.AP-23/V-3351.
And Trolley No.AP-23/T-2013)
2
2. Krishnareddy S/o Gopalreddy P.
Age: Major, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o. Village Gajwada, Raigodh,
Dist: Medak A.P.
(Previous owner of T.T. Unit)
3. The Branch Manager,
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Branch Office, Main Road
Near Ambedkar Chowk, Bidar,
Through its Divisional Manager
Division Office, Dr. Jawali Complex
Super Market, Kalaburagi-584 101.
... Respondents
(Smt. Anita M. Reddy, Advocate for R1;
R2 - served;
Sri Manvendra Reddy, Advocate for R3)
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, praying to allow this
appeal and modify the judgment and award dated
11.11.2016 passed in MVC No.303/2014 by the Additional
MACT and Additional District & Sessions Judge at Bidar
sitting at Bhalki by enhancing the compensation from
Rs.4,18,000/- with 6% interest to Rs.23,45,000/- with
12% interest; allow this appeal and set aside the judgment
and award dated 11.11.2016 passed in MVC No.303/2014
by the Additional MACT and Additional District & Sessions
Judge at Bidar sitting at Bhalki and direct the respondent
No.3 - insurance company to pay the compensation to the
claimants.
This appeal coming on for Final Hearing 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 11.11.2016 passed in MVC No.303/2014
by the Additional M.A.C.T and Additional District &
Sessions Judge at Bidar, sitting at Bhalki (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 on
account of death of one Radhika in a road traffic accident
that occurred on 11.05.2012. The claimants are the
parents of the deceased Radhika.
3. It is the case of the claimants that on
11.05.2012 after attending the PUC classes at Aditya
College Bhalki, the deceased along with her friends had
proceeded in a jeep bearing No.KA.17.A.4328 and at about
15.45 hours after getting down from the jeep she was
proceeding by walk to her house and when she came in
front of Bhalki bus stand, at that time a Tractor bearing
No.AP.23.V.3351 and its Trolley No.AP.23.T.2103 came in
a rash and negligent manner from the opposite direction
and dashed to the deceased resulting in the death of said
Radhika on spot. It is the contention of the claimants that
the deceased was hale and healthy prior to the accident
and she was studying in PUC having intention to take high
education up to post graduation in Computer or Medical
and secure good employment either as Software Engineer
or Medical Officer for her bright future and also to serve
her parents and family members. Apart from such
education, the deceased was taking tuition classes for
primary school students and getting Rs.6,000/- per month.
It is the further contention of the claimants that they have
spent huge amount for her medical treatment.
4. On issuance of notice by the Tribunal,
respondent Nos.1 and 2 though served, did not appear and
was placed ex-parte and respondent No.3-Insurance
Company appeared through its counsel and filed written
statement.
5. Respondent No.3-Insurance Company would
deny that the accident occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the tractor and also
denied the accident. It is further contended that the owner
of the tractor and trolley has violated the terms and
conditions of the policy, as the driver had no valid driving
licence. Further, the compensation claimed is exorbitant.
Thus, sought for dismissal of the petition.
6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,
the Tribunal has framed the following:
ISSUES
1. Whether the claimants prove that
deceased Kum. Radhika d/o Kushalrao who
died in the motor vehicle accident that
occurred on 11-05-2012 at about 15.45
hours on near Bhalki bus stand Bhalki that
has caused on account of the rash and
negligent driving of Tractor bearing
Reg.No.AP.23.V.3351 and its Trolley
No.AP.23.T.2103 by its driver?
2. Whether the claimants entitled for the
compensation? To what extent and from
whom?
3. What order?
7. In order to substantiate their case, claimant
No.1 examined herself as PW.1 and got marked 6
documents as Exs.P1 to P6. On the other hand, respondent
No.3-Insruance Company examined its official as RW.1 and
got marked the Insurance Policy as Ex.R1.
8. On the basis of the evidence on record, the
Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.4,18,000/-
with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its
deposit.
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 and learned counsel for respondent
Nos.1 and 3 and perused the material on record.
11. Sri Babu H. Metagudda, learned counsel for the
appellants would contend that the Tribunal was not right in
assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.27,000/- per
annum, as she was earning Rs.6,000/- per month from
taking tuition classes for primary school students, apart
from studying in PUC and the Tribunal ought to have taken
the notional income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per
month. Awarding compensation towards loss of
dependency has not made provision for future prospects at
40%, as the deceased aged about 30 years and thus,
awarding of compensation under the head 'loss of
dependency' is on the lower side. It is further contended
that the compensation awarded under the conventional
heads is also on the lower side and requires to be
enhanced.
12. Per contra, Sri Manvendra Reddy, learned
counsel for respondent No.3-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 points that arise for consideration in this
appeal are,
1) Whether the appellants are entitled for
enhanced compensation?
2) Whether the Tribunal was justified in absolving
the liability of the insurance company?
14. The fact that Kum. Radhika succumbed to the
injuries sustained by her in the accident that occurred on
11.05.2012 due to the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the Tractor bearing No.AP.23.V.3351 and its
Trolley No.AP.23.T.2103 is not in dispute. However, the
controversy is with regard to the quantum of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a
compensation of Rs.4,18,000/- under the following heads:
i. Loss of Dependency Rs.3,78,000-00
ii. Loss of estate Rs.20,000-00
iii. Loss of love and affection Rs.10,000-00
iv. Transportation of dead body Rs.10,000/-
_____________
Total Rs.4,18,000-00
15. The accident has occurred in the year 2012
and the deceased was taking tuition for the primary school
students apart from pursuing studies in PUC and was
earning Rs.6,000/- per month. Hence, the income
assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side. 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 to be taken for the accident occurred
in the year 2012 would be Rs.6,500/- per month. Hence,
considering the income of the deceased at Rs.6,500/- per
month and adding 40% of it i.e., Rs.2,600/- 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 per month would be
Rs.9,100/-. After deducting 50% of it towards personal
expenses of the deceased since the deceased was a
bachelor and applying the multiplier of 18 bearing in mind
the age of the deceased, the total compensation payable
towards loss of dependency would come to Rs.9,82,800/-
(Rs.9,100 x 50% x 12 x 18).
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 in Magma General Insurance Company
Limited vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and others
reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, the appellants, who are
the parents of the deceased would be entitled to
Rs.40,000/- each i.e. Rs.80,000/- towards loss of filial
consortium. Further, the appellants are entitled to
Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/-
towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses.
17. Thus, the total compensation payable to the
appellants is reassessed as under:
1. Towards loss of dependency Rs.9,82,800/-
2. Towards loss of parental Rs.80,000/-
consortium
3. Towards loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
4. Towards transportation of Rs.15,000/-
dead body and funeral
expenses
Total Rs.10,92,800/-
18. The Tribunal has already awarded a sum of
Rs.4,18,000/-. Hence, after deducting the same, the
appellants would be entitled for enhanced compensation of
Rs.6,74,800/- (Rs.10,92,800/- less Rs.4,18,000/-) with
interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till
realization. Accordingly, we answer point No.1 in the
affirmative.
19. However, the finding recorded by the Tribunal
that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the
compensation on the ground that the driver of the
offending vehicle did not have a valid and effective driving
licence stands answered by the copy of the DL which is
produced along with IA No.1/2021.
20. I.A.No.1/2021 is allowed and the DL particulars
produced as document No.1 issued by the State
Government and produced along with the application in
I.A.No.1/2021 is hereby allowed. However, since the only
document sought to be produced by way of additional
evidence which is now been produced is the DL particulars
which is a public document, we do not find any necessity
to remit the matter back to the Tribunal for
reconsideration. The document is received on record.
Accordingly, the impugned judgment and award is
modified and it is held that the insurance company is liable
to pay the compensation and point No.2 is answered in the
negative.
21. In the result, we pass the following
ORDER
i) The appeal filed by the claimants is allowed in
part.
ii) The judgment and award dated 11.11.2016
passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.303/2014
is hereby modified.
iii) The appellants/claimants are entitled for the
enhanced compensation of Rs.6,74,800/- 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.3-Insurance Company is
directed to pay the compensation as
awarded by the Tribunal as well as by this
Court in favour of the appellants and deposit
the same with updated interest within a
period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
vi) Parties to bear their respective costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
LG
