Karnataka High Court
Benakabai W/O. Gangaram Rathod vs Shivashankar Rudrappa Ghatage on 26 July, 2022
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
MFA No. 101171 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD
BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101171/2021
(MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. BENAKABAI W/O. GANGARAM RATHOD
AGE. 44 YEARS,
OCC HOUSEHOLD WORK,
2. ANIL S/O. GANGARAM RATHOD
AGE. 22 YEARS, OCC NIL
3. SUNIL S/O. GANGARAM RATHOD
AGE. 21 YEARS, OCC STUDENT
ALL ARE R/O. ULLAGADDI-KHANAPUR
TQ. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI
PRESENTLY AT SHIVAJI NAGAR BELAGAVI-590016
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. PRASHANT MATHAPATI, ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by
AND:
SHIVAKUMAR
HIREMATH
SHIVAKUMAR Location: 1. SHIVASHANKAR RUDRAPPA GHATAGE
HIREMATH Dharwad
Date: AGE. MAJOR, OCC. BUSINESS,
2022.07.28
12:15:09 R/O. ULLAGADDI-KHANAPUR
+0530
TQ. HUKKERI
DIST. BELAGAVI-591221
(OWNER OF THE GOODS TRUCK NO. KA-35/A-6375)
-2-
MFA No. 101171 of 2021
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA ASSURANCE CO-LTD.,
D.O.1568, MARUTI GALLI
BELAGAVI-590001
(INSURER OF THE GOODS TRUCK NO. KA-35/A-6375)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADVOCATE FOR R2,
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.02.2021
PASSED IN MVC NO.1337/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI, 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
Though this appeal is listed for admission today, with
the consent of both the parties, it is taken up for final
disposal.
2. Factual matrix of the case of the claimants
before the Tribunal is that the deceased Gangaram Rathod
was well digging contractor and coolie, whereby he was
MFA No. 101171 of 2021
earning Rs.20,000/- per month. On account of the
accident that occurred on 12.06.2019, wife and daughters
of deceased have lost the bread earning member of the
family and hence, claim petition was filed before the
Tribunal and insurance company opposed the same.
3. Wife of the deceased was examined as PW.1
and also examined one witness as PW.2 and got marked
documents as Exs.P.1 to P.17. On the other hand,
insurance company examined one witness as RW.1 and
got marked documents as Exs.R.1 to R.9.
4. The Tribunal after considering both the oral and
documentary evidence on record, awarded compensation
of Rs.16,79,000/- as under:
Sl.No. Heads Compensation
amount in Rs.
1 Loss of dependency 15,60,000
2 Transportation of dead body and 15,000
funeral expenses
3 Loss of estate 15,000
4 Loss of consortium 40,000
5 Medical expenses 9,000
6 Loss of love and affection 40,000
Total 16,79,000
MFA No. 101171 of 2021
5. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and
award, the claimants are in appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently
contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in
taking the income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- per
month and the accident has taken place in the year 2019.
For the accidental death of the year 2019, even notional
income would be Rs.13,250/- and the same ought to have
been considered by the Tribunal.
7. Apart from that, learned counsel would submit
that towards love and affection the Tribunal has awarded
Rs.40,000/- only in respect of two daughters that is also
meager and hence it requires interference by this Court.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
No.2-insurance company submits that no documents are
placed on record with regard to the income of the
deceased is concerned. However, the Tribunal has taken
income at Rs.12,000/- per month and the same is just and
MFA No. 101171 of 2021
reasonable and no grounds are made out to interfere with
the findings of the Tribunal with regard to loss of
dependency as well as other heads. Even the
compensation awarded towards medical expenses at
Rs.9,000/- and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium is
just and proper. Hence, sought for dismissal of the appeal.
9. In view of the rival contentions of the parties,
the following points would arise for consideration:
i. Whether the Tribunal has committed an
error in not awarding just and
reasonable compensation?
ii. What order?
10. Regarding Point No.1: Having heard the
learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the
material on record, the very contention of the claimants
that the deceased was a well digging contractor and was
coolie and in order to substantiate the same, no material
is placed before the Court and also with regard to his
income no material is placed on record. The same is
MFA No. 101171 of 2021
considered in paragraph No.44 of the impugned
judgement. However taking note of the notional income,
the Tribunal ought to have considered Rs.13,250/- as
monthly income instead of Rs.12,000/-. The claimants are
also entitled for addition of 25% having regard to the age
of the deceased and 1/3rd of the assessed income is to be
deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased in
view of number of dependants. Hence, the claimants are
entitled for compensation as under on the head of loss of
dependency:
Rs.13,250 + 25% = Rs.16,562 -1/3rd = 11,042
Rs.11,042 x 12 x 13 = Rs.17,22,552/-
11. Apart from that, the deceased had left behind
wife and two daughters. Hence, the claimants are entitled
for Rs.40,000/- each (Rs.1,20,000/-) towards loss of
consortium, Rs.Rs.30,000/- towards funeral expenses and
loss of estate. The Tribunal has awarded amount of
Rs.9,000/- since medical bills at Ex.P.10 are placed before
MFA No. 101171 of 2021
the Court. Though the bills are amounting to Rs.9,009/-
the Tribunal has rounded off it to Rs.9,000/-. Hence, the
same needs no interference. In all, the claimants are
entitled for Rs.18,81,552/- as compensation.
12. Hence, point No.1 is answered partly in
affirmative.
13. Regarding point No.2: In view of the
discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER
Appeal is allowed in part.
In modification of the impugned judgment and award
passed by the Tribunal, the claimants are entitled for a
sum of Rs.18,81,552/- as against Rs.16,79,000/- awarded
by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment and award.
Enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6%
p.a. from the date of petition till realization.
MFA No. 101171 of 2021
Apportionment and deposit of the compensation
amount would be as per the award of the Tribunal.
Other terms of the impugned judgement are not
disturbed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SH
