Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Kasturibai And Ors on 16 June, 2022
Bench: Sreenivas Harish Kumar, S Rachaiah
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. RACHAIAH
MFA.No.201026/2022 (MV)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
SANGAMESHWAR COLONY
S.B.TEMPLE ROAD,
BRAHMPUR,
KALABURAGI ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
01. KASTURABAI W/O LATE GANAPATI PAWAR
AGE: 52 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD
02. NATHURAM S/O LATE GANAPATI PAWAR
AGE: 28 YEARS OCC: COOLIE
03. SOPAN S/O LATE GANAPATI PAWAR
AGE: 22 YEARS OCC: COOLIE
04. NANDABAI W/O GANAPATI PAWAR
AGE: 50 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD
2
05. DADARAO S/O LATE GANAPATI PAWAR
AGE: 28 YEARS OCC: COOLIE
06. BIKKU S/O GANAPATI PAWAR
AGE: 24 YEARS OCC: COOLIE
07. RAGHUNATH S/O LATE GANAPATI PAWAR
AGE: 20 YEARS OCC: COOLIE
08. RATAN S/O GANAPATI PAWAR
AGE: 19 YEARS OCC: COOLIE
09. THOMABAI D/O LATE GANAPATI PAWAR
AGE: 18 YEARS OCC: COOLIE
ALL ARE R/O: WAGDARI TQ; AKKALKOT
DIST: SOLAPUR, NOW RESIDING AT
PLOT NO.12, MAKA LAYOUT,
JEWARGI COLONY,
KALABURAGI-585 102.
10. SAJID ALI S/O AHMED ALI MUGUR
AGE: MAJOR OCC: OWNER OF ASHOK
LEYLAND LORRY BEARING NO.
MH-25/U-6147
R/O: H.NO.9/5/78, MOHALLA BHAHER
PETH RAZVI ROAD, ALAND,
TQ: ALAND DIST: KALABURAGI-585 105.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NAGARAJ PATIL AND SRI. BHIMASHYA
TAKKALAKI, ADVOCATES FOR R1 TO 9)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF THE
M.V. ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET-
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.01.2022
PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CJM,
KALABURAGI IN MVC.NO.798/2021 BY ALLOWING THE
APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR.
THIS MFA. IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
S. RACHAIAH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the insurance company
challenging the award dated 03.01.2022 passed in
MVC.No.798/2021 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil
Judge, CJM, at Kalaburagi. The Tribunal has awarded
compensation of `.17,52,000/- with interest at the rate of
6% p.a. to respondents No.1 to 9.
02. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE :-
Sri. Ganapati s/o Irappa Pawar succumbed to the
injuries sustained in the Road Traffic Accident. The
accident occurred on 31.10.2020 at about 09.30 p.m.
when he was coming after finishing his meal. Lorry
bearing Reg.No.MH-25-U-6147 came behind the deceased
- Ganapati and dashed him. Though, the injured was
taken to hospital for treatment, he did not survive.
03. Heard Sri. Manvendra Reddy, learned counsel
for the appellant, Sri. Nagaraj Patil and Sri. Bhimshya
Takkalaki, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 9.
04. Sri. Manvendra Reddy, learned counsel for the
appellant submits that the deceased - Ganapati was a
beggar and the Tribunal has considered his income as
`.14,750/- per month which the Tribunal should not have
considered. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of
`.3,20,000/- towards loss of consortium, which is required
to be modified for the reason that the claimants were not
at all depending on the income of the deceased as per the
evidence brought on record. It appears that all the
claimants were living independently on their respective
earnings. This factor should have been considered by the
Tribunal while awarding compensation under the head of
consortium. As such, he prays to allow the appeal.
05. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents
submits that the income of the deceased is taken as per
the chart issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services
Authority by taking into consideration the year of the
accident. Though the records disclose that claimants are
earning members of the family, there was inter
dependency in the family. Hence, the Tribunal after
considering the evidence has rightly awarded the
compensation under the consortium head. In fact the
Tribunal ought to have considered and awarded
compensation under the future prospects head which is
mandatory as per the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. As such, the learned counsel for the
respondents prays to dismiss the appeal filed by the
insurance company.
06. On perusal of the entire records, it appears
that there are nine claimants, they claimed that they were
entitled to compensation being dependents. The Tribunal
while considering the income of the deceased - Ganapati,
opined that the deceased - Ganapati was working as
agriculture coolie. The accident occurred in the year 2020.
Hence, his income was taken as `.14,750/-. Even if it is
assumed that the deceased was beggar, it cannot be said
that notional income should not be considered. Hence,
there is no force in the submission made by the counsel
for the insurance company to accept that the income of
the beggar should not have been considered at any cost as
`.14,750/-.
07. So far as the loss of consortium is concerned,
though all the claimants are stated to be the dependents,
after perusing the records, respondents No.8 and 9 who
were below 20 years of age at the time of accident, and
respondent No.1, who was aged lady, can be considered as
dependents for granting compensation on that head.
Therefore, the respondents No.1, 8 and 9 are entitled for
`.1,20,000/- (`.40,000/- x 3). Respondents No.2, 3, 4, 5, 6
and 7 are undoubtedly entitled to be awarded a certain
sum of money towards loss of love and affection, and
`.10,000/- can be granted to each of them.
08. Thus, the claimants are entitled for
compensation under the following conventional heads as
mentioned below:-
Sl. Conventional Tribunal Amount
No. heads
01. Towards loss of `.14,01,840/- `.14,01,840/-
dependency
02. Towards loss of -- `.00,60,000/-
love and affection
(R2, R3, R4, R5,
R6 AND R7)
03. Towards loss of `.3,20,000/- `.01,20,000/-
consortium
(R1, R8 and R9)
04. Towards loss of `.00,15,000/- `.00,15,000/-
funeral expenses
05. Towards loss of `.00,15,000/- `.00,15,000/-
Estate
Total `.17,51,840/- `.16,11,840/-
Rounded off to
`.17,52,000/-
09. In view of the above, we pass the following;
ORDER
i. The appeal filed by the insurance company is
allowed in part.
ii. The judgment and award dated 03.01.2022 in
MVC.No.798/2021 on the file of the Prl. Senior
Civil Judge, CJM, at Kalaburagi, is modified.
iii. The respondents - claimants are entitled for
compensation of Rs.16,11,840/- with interest at
the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its
realization, as against the compensation of
Rs.17,52,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
iv. The insurance company is directed to deposit the
above said amount within 60 days from the date
of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment,
failing which the insurance compensation will be
liable to pay the interest at the rate of 9% after
60th day.
v. The Registry is directed to transmit the records
along with the statutory deposit to the Tribunal
for necessary compliance.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
KJJ
