Karnataka High Court

The National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Smt. Girija W/O Shivagouda Goudar on 8 June, 2022

Bench: P.Krishna Bhat

                                                    -1-




                                                              MFA No. 22499 of 2010


                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

                                 DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                                                  BEFORE
                                THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.KRISHNA BHAT
                       MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 22499 OF 2010 (MV-D)
                       BETWEEN:
                       THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
                       BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
                       RAMDEV GALLI, BELGAUM.
                                                                        ...APPELLANT
                       (BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S ARANI, ADVOCATE)
                       AND:
                       1.    SMT. GIRIJA W/O SHIVAGOUDA GOUDAR
                             AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
                             R/O: MAHATESH NAGAR, BELGAUM.

                       2.    BASAVANNI K TALAWAR
                             AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
                             R/O: HALAKARNI, TQ: GADINGIAJ,
                             DIST: KOLLAPUR, MAHARASHTRA.
                                                                     ...RESPONDENTS
                       (BY SRI. SHRINIVAS K NADAMANI, ADV., FOR
JAGADISH               SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1; )
TR
Digitally signed by
JAGADISH T R
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD
                              THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF M.V.ACT 1988, AGAINST
                       THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:29-01-2010 PASSED IN MVC
                       NO.1733/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE II-ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE
                       AND     MEMBER,   ADDL.   MACT,    BELGAUM,   AWARDING   THE
                       COMPENSATION OF RS.4,32,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE
                       OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALISATION.

                              THIS MFA COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
                       COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                               -2-




                                        MFA No. 22499 of 2010


                          JUDGMENT

The short question that arises for consideration in this

appeal at the instance of Insurance Company is the exact

proportion of deduction to be made towards personal

expenses in the case of a married person, who on account of

the death arising out of motor vehicle accident leaves behind

his widow as the sole legal representative-cum-dependant.

2. Deceased was aged about 64 years at the time of

his death. The appropriate multiplier applicable to this case is

'7'. The learned Tribunal has taken the monthly income of

the deceased at Rs.7,000/- based on the pension he was

receiving at the time of his death. These aspects are not in

dispute in this appeal before me.

3. The only point of dispute in this appeal is whether

1/3rd of the income of Rs.7,000/- of the deceased should be

deducted towards his personal expenses as contended for

the claimant or 50% of income as contended by the learned

counsel for Insurance Company/appellant.

MFA No. 22499 of 2010

4. Learned counsel for the appellant places reliance

on the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Limited1,

at paragraph 30, which reads as follows:

"30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardized deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant family members exceed six."

5. Based on the above observation, learned counsel

Sri. Rajashekhar Arani, appearing for the Insurance

Company submits that there is a clear mandate in the above

decision that in the case of a deceased on account of whose

death, compensation is being awarded, leaving behind sole

(2009) 6 SCC 121

MFA No. 22499 of 2010

dependant, 50% of income has to be deducted towards his

personal expenses.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant

places reliance on the observation of Division Bench of this

Court in MFA No.100859/2016 (Smt. Uma w/o Sadashiv

Kalmad vs. Basavaraj s/o Baghavanth Hugar and

another) decided on 07.12.2016, at paragraph 10, which

reads as follows:

"10. In the case of Sarla Verma (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court is of the opinion that, in case of a married couple only 1/3 needs to be deducted from the income as the amount of deceased would have spent upon himself. Therefore, the learned Tribunal is unjustified in deducting 50% as the amount that the deceased would have spent upon himself. Thus the deduction to be made from his income is merely 1/3."

7. I have carefully perused the above portions of the

judgment in Sarla Verma's case and in Smt.Uma's case.

There is no clear statement in paragraph 30 of the judgment

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma's case that in

the case where the married deceased leaves behind a sole

MFA No. 22499 of 2010

dependant, deduction towards personal expenses to be made

is 50%. On the other hand, the observation at paragraph 31

reads as follows:

"31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent/s and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependant on the father. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where family of the bachelor is large and dependant on the income of the deceased, as in a

MFA No. 22499 of 2010

case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third."

8. The above observation clearly indicates that in

case of death of a bachelor, deduction to be made towards

personal expenses is 50% and the reason given by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court is the spend- thrift nature of the

bachelors. In cases of deceased who are elderly citizens,

leaving behind their widows, the same logic and rationale

cannot be applied inasmuch as elderly citizens are more

saving prone than being spend thrift. The Hon'ble Division

Bench of this Court in Smt. Uma's case, on the other hand,

after referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in Sarla Verma's case, has clearly held that in cases of

married couple, deduction of 50% towards personal