Karnataka High Court
Smt.Rathanamma W/O. Late ... vs G.Vasudeva S/O. G.Venkoba Rao @ ... on 13 January, 2022
Bench: S G Pandit, Anant Ramanath Hegde
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
M.F.A. No. 104425/2019 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.RATHANAMMA W/O. LATE GOVINDAPPA
AGE : 36 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEWIFE
2. KUM.SHASHIKALA D/O. LATE GOVINDAPPA
AGE : 10 YEARS, OCC : STUDENT
3. KUM.UMADEVI D/O. LATE GOVINDAPPA
AGE :08 YEARS, OCC : STUDENT
4. KUM.UDAY S/O. LATE GOVINDAPPA
AGE : 6 YEARS, OCC : STUDENT
SINCE APPELLANTS NO.2 TO 4 ARE MINORS
R/BY THEIR NATURAL MOTHER
M/G, I.E., APPELLANT NO.1.
ALL ARE R/O : 4TH WARD, TALAVARAPET
EMMIGANUR VILLAGE, BALLARI-583113.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. HARISH.S.MAIGUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. G.VASUDEVA S/O. G.VENKOBA RAO @ VENKOBA
AGE : 52 YEARS, OCC : DRIVER CUM ONWER
R/O. EWS 115, KHB COLONY
2
BONDEL, MANGALURU-575008.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
NEAR RADHIKA THEATRE
BALLARI-583101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ARUNA DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2,
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
173(1) OF M.V. ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 23.11.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.705/2017 ON THE FILE OF
THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-V, BALLARI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, S.G. PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The claimants-appellants are before this Court not being
satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded under the
judgment and award dated 23.11.2018 passed in M.V.C.
No.705/2017 on the file of the learned First Addl. Senior Civil
Judge and Member, MACT-V, Ballari (hereinafter referred as
'Tribunal', for short) and praying for enhancement of
compensation.
2. Claimants-appellants are the wife and children of
deceased Govindappa S/o Hulugappa filed claim petition under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, claiming compensation for
the accidental death of Govindappa S/o Hulugappa that had
occurred on 01.05.2017, involving Scooter bearing Regn.No.KA-
18/E-8413. It is stated that the deceased was working as
Agriculturist-cum-coolie and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month
as on the date of accident. The claimant No.1-wife of the
deceased Govindappa examined herself as PW1 and also
examined PW2 and got marked Ex.P1 to P19 in support of their
case. The respondent got marked Ex.R1-policy copy with
consent.
3. The Tribunal on consideration of the material on
record, awarded compensation on the following heads with
interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
Towards loss of dependency ` 10,80,000/-
Loss of consortium ` 20,000/-
Loss of estate ` 20,000/-
Funeral expenses ` 10,000/-
Total ` 11,30,000/-
While awarding the amount of compensation, the Tribunal
assessed the income of the deceased at 7,500/-. The Tribunal
adopted multiplier of '16' and deducted 1/4th towards personal
expenses of the deceased.
4. We have heard Sri.Harish.S.Maigur, learned counsel
for the appellants-claimants and Smt.Aruna Deshpande, learned
counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the
income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.7,500/- per month of the
deceased is on the lower side, when the claimants stated that
the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. It is further
contended that even otherwise on the basis of the chart
prepared by the Karnataka Legal Service Authority, the income
of the deceased ought to have been taken at Rs.10,250/- per
month. Thus, he prays for modification of the income assessed
by the Tribunal. The learned counsel contends that the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd
vs. Pranay Sethi and others,1 has held that the claimants
would be entitled for an addition of 40% of the assessed income
AIR 2017 Supreme Court 5157
towards future prospects wherever the deceased was below the
age of 40 years which the claimants would be entitled. Since, the
deceased was aged about 35 years at the time of accident.
Learned counsel also contends that claimant Nos.2 to 4 would be
entitled for Rs.40,000/- each on the head of parental consortium
as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance
Co.Ltd Vs Nanu Ram and Others2.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-
Insurance company would submit that the compensation
awarded by the tribunal is just compensation, which needs no
interference.
7. The accident that had taken place on 01.05.2017
and the accidental death of one Govindappa involving scooter
bearing Reg.No.KA-18-E/8413 is not in dispute in this appeal
and the claimants are before this Court praying for enhancement
of compensation.
8. The deceased was working as Agriculturist-cum-
Coolie and it is claimed by the claimants that the deceased was
(2018 ACJ 2782)
earning Rs.20,000/- per month. But no material whatsoever is
produced to establish the said income. In the absence of any
material on record, the Tribunal assessed the income of the
deceased at Rs.7,500/- per month, which is on the lower side
and needs interference. This Court and the Lok-Adalaths while
settling the accidental claims of the year 2017, would normally
assess the income of the deceased at Rs.10,250/- per month
based on the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal
Services Authority, which is prepared taking note of the various
factors including the minimum wages. Accordingly, we deem it
appropriate to assess the income at Rs.10,250/- per month in
order to determine the compensation.
9. The Tribunal committed grave error in not awarding
any compensation on the head of future prospects. Admittedly,
the deceased was aged 35 years. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Pranay Sethi (supra), has held that the claimants would
be entitled for addition of 40% of the assessed income towards
future prospects, wherever the deceased was aged below 40
years. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for addition of 40%
of the assessed income towards future prospects. The multiplier
of 16 adopted by the Tribunal and deduction of 1/4th towards
personal expenses of the deceased is proper and correct which
needs no interference. The wife of the deceased i.e. 1st claimant
would be entitled for a sum of Rs.70,000/- including spousal
consortium, transportation, funeral expenses and towards loss of
estate. The claimant Nos.2 to 4 are entitled for parental
consortium of Rs.40,000/- each as held by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Magma (supra). Thus, the claimants would be entitled
for the following modified compensation:
Loss of dependency ` 20,66,496.00
(10,250 + 40% = 14,350-1/4 (3587.5)
14,350 x 12 x 16 = 20,66,496/-
Towards parental consortium 1,20,000.00
(40,000 x 3)
Towards spousal consortium, transportation, ` 70,000.00
funeral expenses and loss of estate.
Total ` 22,56,496.00
10. Thus, the claimants are entitled for total
compensation of Rs.22,56,496.00 as against Rs.11,30,000.00
with interest at 6% p.a.
11. In the result, we pass the following order.
ORDER
The appeal is allowed in part. Consequently, the impugned
judgment and award dated 23.11.2018 passed in M.V.C.
No.705/2014 by the learned I Addl.Senior Civil Judge and
Member, MACT-V, Ballari is modified to the above extent.
The appellants-claimants are entitled to a total
compensation of Rs.22,56,496.00 as against 11,30,000.00 with
interest at 6% p.a.
In other terms, the order of the Tribunal stands unaltered.
Respondent No.2-insurer shall deposit the entire award
amount along with up to date interest within a period of six
weeks.
Pending I.A's, if any, do not survive for consideration and
the same are accordingly disposed of.
SD/-
JUDGE
SD/-
JUDGE
am
