Smt. Nirmala W/O Ningappa Dalali vs The Managing Director
2022 Latest Caselaw 12943 Kant

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 12943 Kant
Judgement Date : 10 November, 2022

Karnataka High Court

Smt. Nirmala W/O Ningappa Dalali vs The Managing Director on 10 November, 2022

Bench: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav, Umesh M Adiga

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                 DHARWAD BENCH

      DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022

                       PRESENT

  THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV

                         AND

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

            MFA NO 101982 OF 2021(MV)

BETWEEN

1.    SMT. NIRMALA
      W/O NINGAPPA DALALI
      AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WORK,

2.    VISHWANATH
      S/O NINGAPPA DALALI
      AGE. 23 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,

      BOTH ARE R/O. KONCHIGERI
      TQ. SHIRAHATTI
      DIST. GADAG-582117

                                         ...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI.G.R. TURAMARI, ADVOCATE)


AND

1.    THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
      NWKTC, GOKUL ROAD,
      HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580310
                            2




2.   THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
     NWKRTC, GADAG DIVISION
     GADAG,
     DIST. GADAG-582101

3.   THE SELF INSURANCE FUND,
     NWKRTC, GOKUL ROAD,
     HUBBALLI,
     DIST. DHARWAD-580310.

                                           ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.M.K.SOUDAGAR, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3)


     THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES

ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION

OF THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., LAXMESHWAR IN MVC

NO.74/2019 DATED 18.11.2020 AND ALLOW THE APPEAL.


     THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AT THE STAGE OF

ADMISSION AND RESERVED ON 27.10.2022 FOR ORDERS AND

COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY, UMESH M

ADIGA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                              3




                       JUDGEMENT

This is an appeal against the award and judgment

passed by Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Laxmeshwar

in MVC No.74/2019 dated 18.11.2020 seeking

enhancement of compensation.

2. We refer the parties as per their ranks before the

trial Court.

3. It is the case of appellants/petitioners before the

trial Court that husband of petitioner No.1, father of

petitioner No.2 by name Ningappa Neelappa Dalali

met with vehicle accident on 14.12.2018 at 7 p.m. on

Chabbi-Bellatti road, due to rash and negligent driving

of bus bearing No.KA-26/X-1045 by its driver. Due to

the accident said Ningappa sustained grievous injuries

and died at the spot. The deceased was aged about

45 years at the time of accident. He was an

agriculturist and milk vendor; and earning Rs.25,000/-

per month. Petitioners were depending upon the

earning of the deceased. With these reasons, they

prayed to award compensation of Rs.25,70,000/- with

interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

4. Respondent No.2 before the trial Court denied all

the averments made in the petition and contended

that accident had taken place due to the negligence of

the deceased. Respondents were not liable to pay

compensation. With these reasons prayed to dismiss

the petition.

5. From the above pleadings, the MACT framed the

following issues:

1) Whether the petitioners proves that, on 14.12.2018 at about 7 p.m. on Konchigeri Shirahatti road within the jurisdiction of this Court, accident was caused in between NWKSRTC bus bearing No.KA-26/X-1045 due to rash and

negligent driving of the bus and rider of the motor cycle is died on the spot?

2) Whether the respondent proves that, petition filed by the petitioners is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

3) Whether the petitioners are entitled for the compensation? If so, from whom and what is the quantum of the amount?

           4)    What order or award?


6.   Appellants     examined    PW1   and    got    marked

EX.P.1 to P.11. Respondent No.2 examined RW.1 and

got marked Exs.R1 to R4.

7. Learned trial Judge appreciating the pleadings,

evidence and arguments advanced by both the

parties, by the impugned judgment awarded

compensation of Rs.12,70,000/- with interest at the

rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization

of entire amount.

8. With the consent of the learned advocate for the

parties, matter is taken up for final disposal at the

stage of admission.

9. By the impugned judgment, learned trial judge

held that accident had taken place due to rash and

negligent driving of bus by its driver. This finding is

not challenged by the respondents.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant contended

that income of the deceased was Rs.25,000/- per

month. However, learned trial Court has taken the

income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month,

which is erroneous. In the Lok-adalath, while

compromising of MVC cases, notional income of the

victims are considered as Rs.11,750/- for the accident

taken place during 2018, trial Judge ought to have

considered the same for determination of income.

The learned trial judge has not considered the future

prospects while assessing income and awarding

compensation under the head loss of consortium, as

held in the case of National Insurance Company

Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680.

With these reasons prayed for enhancement of the

compensation.

11. The learned advocate for respondents

vehemently supported the impugned judgment.

12. The following point emerges for consideration in

this appeal:

1) Whether appellants are entitled for enhancement of compensation amount?

13. The submission of the learned advocate for

appellants is tenable. It is true that there is no legal

evidence before the trial Court to accept the earnings

of deceased as Rs.25,000/- per month. Therefore, on

the basis of approximation, trial Court assessed

notional income of deceased as Rs.10,000/- per

month. The accident was taken place during the year

2018 i.e. on 14.12.2018. As considered, in Lok-

adalaths, notional income of the deceased is taken as

Rs.11,750/- per month for the accident occurred

during the year 2018. Same is to be taken in the

present case.

14. Deceased Ningappa died at the age of 45 years.

The Tribunal ought to have taken the future prospects

of the deceased to determine income. Looking to the

age of deceased, 25% of the notional income is to be

taken as future prospects. The annual income was

Rs.11,750X12=1,41,000/- + 25% future prospects i.e.

Rs.35,250=Rs.1,76,250/-. Deceased was married and

having two dependants. Hence, 1/3 is to be deducted

towards personal expenses. Therefore, net income of

the deceased per annum was Rs.1,17,500/-; suitable

multiplier applicable in this case is 14 Hence,

compensation to be awarded under the head "loss of

dependency" is Rs.16,45,000/-, as against amount of

Rs.16,80,000/- awarded by the MACT.

15. In the case of National Insurance Company

Vs. Pranay Sethi, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that

spousal consortium and parental consortium at the rate

of Rs.40,000/- each is to be awarded. Therefore,

Rs.80,000/- needs to be awarded under the said head.

Rs.15,000/- each needs to be awarded towards loss of

estate and funeral expenses. The trial Court in the

impugned judgment has awarded compensation of

Rs.30,000/- towards repair of the motorcycle, that is

not disputed. Hence, the total just compensation

amount for which petitioners are entitled is

Rs.17,85,000-00 as against Rs.12,70,000/- awarded by

MACT.

16. Respondents are liable to pay interest on the

enhanced compensation amount at the rate of 6% per

annum, from the date of petition till realization of the

entire amount. To that extent, impugned judgment

needs modification.

17. For the above said discussions, we pass the

following:

ORDER

Appeal is partly allowed with costs. Impugned judgment and award is modified. The compensation of Rs.17,85,000/- is awarded as against Rs.12,70,000/- awarded by MACT with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization of the entire amount. To that effect, impugned judgment is modified.