Karnataka High Court
Jaishree Bai And Ors vs Umakanth And Anr on 21 March, 2022
Bench: Ashok S. Kinagi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
MFA No.200472/2022 (MV)
Between:
1. Smt. Jaishree Bai
W/o Late Narayanrao Borale,
Age: 50 years, Occ: Household,
2. Lakmaji S/o Late Narayanrao,
Age: 32 years, Occ: Agriculture,
3. Vikram S/o Late Narayanrao,
Age: 30 years, Occ: Agriculture,
4. Vishal S/o Late Narayanrao,
Age: 28 years, Occ: Agriculture,
5. Ravi Babu S/o Late Narayanrao,
Age: 26 years, Occ: Agriculture,
6. Rahul S/o Late Narayanrao,
Age: 22 years, Occ: Agriculture,
All are R/o H.No.8-74, Kunbiwada,
Chitguppa, Tq. Chitguppa,
Dist. Bidar-585 412.
... Appellants
(By Sri Basavaraj R. Math, Advocate)
2
And:
1. Umakanth S/o Gurudas,
Age: 52 years, Occ: Business,
R/o H.No.10/92, Chitguppa,
Tq. Chitguppa, Dist. Bidar-585 412.
2. The Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
CST No.477/1M-1, 1st floor,
V.A.Kalaburgi, Hallmark,
Desai Cross, Pinto Road, Hubballi,
Dist. Dharwad-580 009.
... Respondents
(By Ms. Sangeeta Bhadrashetty, Advocate for R2;
V/o dated 10.03.2022 notice to R1 is dispensed
with)
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
173(1) of the M.V.Act praying to call for records and
modify the impugned judgment and award dated
05.10.2021 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT,
Humnabad in MVC No.315/2019.
This appeal coming on for Admission, this day, the
Court delivered the following:-
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the petitioners under Section
173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act')
challenging the judgment and award dated 05.10.2021
passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Humnabad (for short hereinafter
referred to as 'the Tribunal') in MVC No.315/2019.
2. Parties are referred to as per their ranking
before the Tribunal. Appellants are petitioners and
respondents are respondents before the Tribunal.
3. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal are
that on 31.01.2019 in the evening the deceased-
Narayanrao Borale was carrying milk on his motorcycle
bearing registration No.KA-39/L-8082 for supplying to
hotels. At about 7.30 p.m., when he was proceeding on
his motorcycle near Chitguppa bus stand, Sardar Chowk,
the offending Auto bearing registration No.KA-39/9778
came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the
motorcycle of Narayanrao Borale. Due to which, the
deceased sustained injuries to his head and succumbed
to the injuries on the next day i.e., 01.02.2019.
Petitioners being the legal representatives of the
deceased-Narayanrao filed claim petition under Section
166 of the Act seeking compensation on account of the
death of the deceased-Narayanrao in a road traffic
accident.
4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed objections
denying the averments made in the claim petition and
denied the age, income and avocation of the deceased.
Respondent No.1 contended that the driver of the
offending auto was holding valid and effective driving
licence as on the date of the accident. Hence, prayed to
dismiss the claim petition against respondent No.1.
5. It is contended by respondent No.2 that the
driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence
as on the date of the accident. There is violation of the
policy condition and on these grounds, prayed to dismiss
the claim petition as against respondent No.2.
6. The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of
the parties framed the issues and recorded evidence. In
order to prove the case, petitioner No.1 examined
herself as PW.1 and got marked the documents as
Exs.P1 to P15. Respondent No.2/insurance company
examined its official as RW.1 and got marked the
documents as Exs.R1 and R2.
7. The Tribunal after recording the evidence
and after considering the material on record held that
the petitioners have proved that the deceased-
Narayanrao Borale met with accident, sustained injures
and succumbed to the injuries in the accident occurred
due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
offending auto and further held that the petitioners are
entitled for compensation and consequently, allowed the
claim petition and awarded compensation of
Rs.7,22,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the
date of claim petition till the date of realization and
further held that the respondents are jointly and
severally liable to pay compensation.
8. Being dissatisfied with the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioners/appellants have
filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners
and the learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance
company.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
is on the lower side. He submits that the Tribunal ought
to have taken into consideration the notional income of
the deceased as per the guidelines issued by the
Karnataka Leal Services Authority, on the contrary, has
taken notional income at Rs.7,000/- per month. He
further submitted that the Tribunal has committed an
error in not adding future prospects to the income of the
deceased while calculating loss of dependency. Hence,
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the
lower side and prays to allow the appeal.
11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.2-Insurance company supports the
impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal
and further contends that the compensation awarded by
the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for
interference and prays to dismiss the appeal.
12. I have perused the records and considered
the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
parties. The point that arises for consideration is with
regard to quantum of compensation.
13. The occurrence of the accident, involvement
of the offending vehicle in the accident and death of the
deceased-Narayanrao Borale in the accident are not in
dispute. In order to prove the negligence on the part of
the driver of the offending vehicle, the petitioners have
produced copy of charge sheet which is marked as
Ex.P4. From perusal of Ex.P4, it is clear that the
accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving
of the driver of the offending vehicle.
14. Perusal of the impugned judgment would
indicate that the petitioners/appellants did not tender
any evidence with regard to the income of the deceased
before the Tribunal. In the absence of proof of income,
the notional income of the deceased will have to be
taken as per the chart provided by the Karnataka State
Legal Services Authority. In terms of the chart, for the
accident of the year 2019, the notional income of the
deceased will have to be taken at Rs.13,250/- as against
Rs.7,000/- per month taken by the Tribunal. To the
aforesaid amount, as the deceased was aged 60 years,
10% of the said amount has to be added on account of
future prospects in view of the law laid down by the
Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of
National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay
Sethi and Others reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157.
Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.14,575/-. Out of
which, considering that there are six dependents, I
deem it appropriate to deduct 1/4th of the said income
towards personal expenses of the deceased and
therefore, the monthly income of the deceased comes to
Rs.10,931/-. Taking into account the age of the
deceased which was 60 years at the time of accident,
multiplier of 9 has to be adopted as per the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma
vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in
(2009) 6 SCC 121. Therefore, the petitioners are
entitled to a sum of Rs.11,80,548/- (10,931 x 12 x 9) on
account of loss of dependency as against Rs.5,67,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal.
15. Further, in view of the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma
General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu
Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Others reported in
(2018) 18 SCC 130, each petitioner is entitled to a
sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium. The
petitioners are six in number, hence the compensation
towards loss of consortium would be Rs.2,40,000/-
(40,000 x 6). In addition, the petitioners/appellants
are entitled a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral
expenses and Rs.15,000/- under the head of loss of
estate.
16. Thus, in all, the petitioners are entitled to a
sum of Rs.14,50,548/- as against Rs.7,22,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal.
17. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed in part.
ii. The impugned judgment and award
passed by the Tribunal is modified.
iii. The petitioners are entitled to an
enhanced compensation of
Rs.7,28,548/- along with interest at the
rate of 6% per annum from the date of
petition till the date of realization.
iv. Respondent No.2-insurance company is
directed to deposit the compensation
amount before the Tribunal within a
period of eight weeks from date of the
receipt of certified copy of this
judgment.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NB*
