Karnataka High Court
Smt.Sulochana W/O Sharad Mane And ... vs Sri.Parashuram S/O Dadu Vhsamane ... on 30 March, 2022
Bench: Ashok S. Kinagi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
MFA No.201614/2014 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SULOCHANA W/O SHARAD MANE,
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
2. SRI. SANTOSH S/O SHARAD MANE,
AGE ABOUT: 33 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
3. SRI. SANDEEP S/O SHARAD MANE,
AGED ABOUT: 30 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
4. SRI. SAGAR S/O SHARAD MANE,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
OCC: COOLIE,
APPELLANTS ARE ALL
R/O. SHAHU NAGAR,
BIJAPUR-586 101.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI S.S.MAMADAPUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. PARASHURAM
S/O DADU VHSAMANE,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. AT/POST: SHIVAJI PETH
MAKANDAR GALLI, JATH,
DIST: SANGLI-416 416.
2
2. SRI. VIJAY BAPUSO PATIL,
R/O. AT/POST: NARWAD,
TQ: MIRAJ,
DIST: SANGLI-416 416.
3. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
GURUKUL ROAD,
BIJAPUR-586101.
4. ALTAB HASAN KURANE,
AGE: MAJOR,
R/O. AT/POST: KATNAL,
TQ. MIRAJ,
DIST. SANGLI-416 416.
SOLAPUR, MAHARASHTRA
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SANJEEV KUMAR C. PATIL, ADV. FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 SERVED;
SRI. RAHUL R.ASTURE, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
V/O DTD. 16.03.2016 NOTICE TO R4 D/W)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.04.2014 PASSED IN MVC
NO.150/2011 ON THE FILE OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL NO.VII BIJAPUR AT BIJAPUR, PARTLY ALLOWING
THE CLAIM PETITION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
3
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the petitioners under Section
173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act')
aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 08.04.2014
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - VII,
Bijapura at (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the
Tribunal') in MVC No.150/2011.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are
referred to as per their ranking before the Claims
Tribunal. Appellants are the petitioners and
respondents are the respondents before the Tribunal.
3. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal are as
under:
On 16.10.2010, when the deceased - Sharad
Malhari Mane was about to cross the road from Burud
Galli on Jath Sangli Road near Shivaji Statue, by that
time the rider of the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.MH-
11/9353 road the same in a high speed, rash and
negligent manner, thereby, loosing the control over it
and dashed to the deceased. On account of it, the
deceased sustained severe head injuries. The petitioners
being the legal representatives of the deceased filed the
claim petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking
compensation on account of death of Sri Sharad Malhari
Mane in the road traffic accident.
4. During the pendency of the petition,
respondent No.4 was added. But placed exparte. Except
respondent No.3, none of the respondents have filed the
written statement and denied the averments made in
the claim petition with regard to age, income and
manner of accident. Hence, on these grounds, he prayed
to dismiss the claim petition.
5. The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of
the parties framed the issues:
6. The petitioners in support of their claim
petition examined petitioner No.1 as P.W.1 and
examined one eye witness as P.W.2 and got marked the
documents as Exs.P1 to P6. The official of respondent
No.3 was examined as RW.1 and got marked the
document as Ex.R1.
7. The Tribunal, after recording the evidence
and considering the material on record, allowed the
claim petition in part and awarded compensation of
Rs.2,97,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
Further, respondent Nos.1 to 4 are jointly and severally
liable to pay the compensation with interest. However,
respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the compensation
amount.
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
appellants/petitioners and also the learned counsel for
respondent No.3.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
is on the lower side. Though the petitioners have
contended that the deceased was working as a coolie
and earning Rs.6,000/- per month, however, in the a
absence of proof of his income, the Tribunal ought to
have taken the income as per chart. He further pleads
that the Tribunal has committed an error in taking the
income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/-, which is on the
lower side. Hence, he submits that the appeal may be
allowed and the compensation may be enhanced.
11. Per contra, the learned counsel for
respondent No.3 submits that the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not
call for any interference. Hence, he prayed 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 there is no dispute
in regard to manner of accident and also the death of
Sri Sharad Malhari Mane in the road traffic accident.
13. It is the case of the petitioners that the
deceased was working as a coolie and earning
Rs.6,000/- per month. In support of their contention,
the petitioners not have produced any income proof. In
the absence of proof of the income, the income is taken
as per the chart provided by the Karnataka State Legal
Services Authority, the notional income will have to be
taken into consideration. In terms of the chart, for the
accident of the year 2010, the income of the deceased
will have to be taken at Rs.5,500/- as against
Rs.6,000/- per month taken by the Tribunal. Further,
deceased is having 4 dependents, 1/4th has to be
deducted out of Rs.5,500/-, it comes to Rs.4,125/-
(5,500/- X 1,375/- = 4,125/-). Therefore, the monthly
income of the deceased comes to Rs.4,125/-. Taking
into account the age of the deceased which was 65
years at the time of accident, multiplier of '7' 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.3,46,500/- (4,125 x 12 x 7) on account of loss
of dependency as against Rs.2,52,000/- awarded by
the Tribunal.
14. 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 petitioners are entitled to a sum of
Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium. The
petitioners are 4 in number, hence the compensation
towards loss of consortium would be Rs.1,60,000/-
(40,000 x 5). In addition, the petitioners are entitled
for a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards 'funeral expenses'
and Rs.15,000/- towards of 'loss of estate'.
15. Thus, in all, the petitioners are entitled to a
sum of Rs.5,36,500/- as against Rs.2,97,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal. The petitioners are entitled
for enhanced compensation of Rs.2,39,500/- with
interest at the rate 6% per annum, from the date of
petition, till its realization.
16. 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 dated is
modified.
iii. The petitioners are entitled to an
enhanced compensation of
Rs.2,39,500/- along with interest at
the rate of 6% per annum from the
date of petition till the date of
realization.
iv. Respondent No.3 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
ssb
