United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Smt. Shankramma W/O Late ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 11180 Kant

                             -1-




                                      MFA No. 101985 of 2022


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD
                           BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

                          BEFORE
        THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101985/2022
                          (MV-D)
BETWEEN:

1.    UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD
      UMA MAHESHWARA RAO BUILDING
      STATION ROAD, HOSPETE
      DIST. BELLARY, KARNATAKA
      PIN 583201
      REPRESENTED BY ITS SR. DIVISIONAL MANAGAER.

                                                    ...APPELLANT

(BY SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.    SMT. SHANKRAMMA W/O LATE KALAKAPPA REVANKI
      AGE 28 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD

2.    KUMARI SAVITA D/O LATE KALAKAPPA
      AGE 8 YEARS,

3.    KUMAR PRAJWAL S/O LATE KALAKAPPA
      AGE 7 YEARS,


      RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3 HEREIN ARE MINORS

      AND UNDER GUARDIAN OF THE NATURAL MOTHER
      RESPONDENT NO.1 HEREIN

4.    SHIVAPPA S/O BASAPA REVANKI
                              -2-




                                      MFA No. 101985 of 2022


     AGE 60 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE

5.   BASAMMA W/O SHIVAPPA REVANKI
     AGE 49 YEARS,
     OCC. HOUSE HOLD AND COOLIE


     ALL ARE R/O YEREHANCHINAL
     TQ. YELBURGA, DIST. KOPPAL
     PINCODE 583236.

6.   RAJABHAKSHI S/O AHMED SAB
     AGE MAJOR
     OCC. DRIVER OF LORRY BEARING NO. KA-35/A-7984
     R/O NARASAPUR MAGANI
     HOSAPETE, DIST. BELLARY
     PINCODE 583201.

7.   S. GURUSHARAN SINGH S/O HARIDRAN SING
     PLOT NO. 24/15TH WARD
     N.C. COLONY, BEHIND WEAR TANK,
     HOSAPETE, TQ. WEF-2-7014,
     DIST, BALLARI, PINCODE 583201.

                                                ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. D.V.PATTAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO R5,
NOTICE TO R.6 & R7 DISPENSED WITH)

      THIS APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS CONNECTED WITH MVC
NO. 156/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AT
YELBURGA, EXAMINE THE SAME AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 19.03.2022 BY REDUCING THE COMPENSATION TO
THE JUST LEVEL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.


      THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                 -3-




                                      MFA No. 101985 of 2022


                          JUDGMENT

Heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties.

2. Though this appeal is listed for admission today,

with the consent of both the parties, it is taken up for final

disposal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has filed a

memo seeking dispensation of notice to respondent Nos.6

and 7. In view of the memo, notice to the said

respondents is dispensed with at the risk of the appellant.

4. The present appeal is filed by the insurance

company questioning the quantum of compensation

awarded by the Tribunal to the tune of Rs.29,28,296/-.

5. Factual matrix of the case of the claimants

before the Tribunal is that deceased-Kalakappa was

working in JSW factory as labour and he was getting

salary of Rs.20,000/- per month and the family members

have lost the bread earner of the family due to the

MFA No. 101985 of 2022

accident occurred on 29.07.2017 and hence claimed

compensation of Rs.60,25,000/-.

6. The claimants are the wife, children and parents

of the deceased. To substantiate their claim, claimant No.1

examined herself as PW.1 and got marked documents as

Exs.P.1 to P.8. On the other hand, respondent has

examined two witnesses as RWs.1 and 2 and got marked

documents as Exs.R.1 to R.6.

7. The very contention of the insurance company

before this Court is that the Tribunal has taken the income

of the deceased at Rs.13,250/- without any basis. To

substantiate the fact that the deceased was working in

JSW factory and was having income of Rs.20,000/- per

month, no documents are placed before the Court. It is

further contended that the income assessed by the

Tribunal is on the higher side.

8. Learned counsel for appearing for the insurance

company brought to the notice of this Court that in the

MFA No. 101985 of 2022

absence of any documents, the Court has to make guess

work by considering the notional income in terms of the

chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services

Authority and as per the said chart the notional income

would be Rs.10,250/- in respect of an accidental claim of

the year 2017. Hence, the income taken by the Tribunal

needs to be modified by this Court.

9. He would also contend that on the other hand

the compensation awarded on other heads is also on

higher side and the same needs to be reduced.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the

respondents/claimants would submit that the deceased

was working in JSW factory as labour and hence the

Tribunal has taken the income at Rs.13,250/- and the

Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation.

Thus, sought for dismissal of the appeal.

11. In view of the rival contentions of the parties,

the following points would arise for consideration:

MFA No. 101985 of 2022

i. Whether the Tribunal has awarded exorbitant compensation as contended in the appeal?

ii. What order?

12. Regarding Point No.1: Having heard the

learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the

material on record, in support of the claim of the claimants

that the deceased was working in JSW factory as labour,

no documents are placed before the Court and in the

absence of any documentary proof, the Court has to

consider the notional income and has to make only the

guess work. In view of the chart prepared by the

Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, the notional

income at Rs.10,250/- should be taken into consideration.

Considering the age of the deceased, 40% is to be added

to the income of the deceased. Further, having considered

the number of dependants, 1/4th of the income should be

deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. The

appropriate multiplier would be 17. Thus, the claimants

MFA No. 101985 of 2022

are entitled for the following compensation under the head

loss of dependency.

Rs.10,250 + 40% = Rs.14,350/-

Rs.14,350 x 12 x 17 x 3/4th = Rs.21,95,550/-

13. The claimants are also entitled for

Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.40,000/- each) under the head loss of

consortium and love and affection since they are wife,

children and parents of the deceased. The Tribunal has

awarded Rs.33,000/- (Rs.16,500 each) under the heads

loss of estate and funeral expenses and the same is not

interfered with. Hence, in all the claimants are entitled for

Rs.24,28,550/- as against Rs.29,28,296/- with 6%

interest. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered.

14. Regarding point No.2: In view of the

discussions made above, I pass the following:

ORDER

Appeal is allowed in part.

MFA No. 101985 of 2022

In modification of the impugned judgment and award

passed by the Tribunal, the claimants are entitled for a

sum of Rs.24,28,550/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the

date of petition till realization as against Rs.29,28,296/-

awarded by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment and

award.

Apportionment and deposit of the compensation

amount would be as per the award of the Tribunal.

Amount in deposit, if any, is ordered to be

transferred to the Tribunal forthwith.

Insurance Company is directed to deposit the

compensation amount within four weeks from the date of

receipt of a certified copy of this order.

SD/-

JUDGE SH