Karnataka High Court
Anandibai David Gaikwad vs Kashinath Tiku Rathod on 11 October, 2022
Bench: R Natarajpresided Byrnj
-1-
MFA No. 22979 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 22979 OF 2013 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.ANANDIBAI DAVID GAIKWAD
AGE: 63 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O.ASHIRWAD, NO.1204,
LAXMI NAGAR, HINDALAGA,
BELGAUM
2. SMT.BAGESHREE VIJAKUMAR TIMNAL
AGE: 40 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O.ASHIRWAD, NO.1204, LAXMI NAGAR,
HINDALAGA, BELGAUM
3. SHRI DHAIRSHEEL DAVID GAIKWAD
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O.ASHIRWAD, NO.1204, LAXMI NAGAR,
HINDALAGA, BELGAUM
Digitally
signed by J
MAMATHA
...APPELLANTS
J
Date:
MAMATHA 2022.10.15 (BY SRI. HARISH S MAIGUR, ADVOCATE)
12:12:09
+0530
AND:
1. KASHINATH TIKU RATHOD
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O.H.NO.8/8, MALKHED,
TALUK: SEDAM, DIST: GULBARGA
2. THE MANAGER
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
S-5, 2ND FLOOR, MONARCH
CHAMBERS, INFANTRY ROAD,
-2-
MFA No. 22979 of 2013
BANGALORE-01
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.NAGARAJ C.KOLLOORI, ADVOCATE FOR R2,
R1 SERVED)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:01-04-2013 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1403/2012 ON THE FILE OF IV-ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,
BELGAUM, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The claimants in M.V.C.No.1403/2012 on the file of
the IV Addl. District Judge, Belagavi, have filed this appeal
seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal.
2. The contextual facts are that the claimants are
the wife and children of Mr.David Gaikwad who suffered
injuries in a road accident on 05.06.2012 when he was
riding a motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-22/EC-
3547 which was rear ended by a truck bearing registration
No.KA-32-B/2698. The said Mr.David suffered injuries and
was treated at District Hospital, Belagavi, and thereafter at
MFA No. 22979 of 2013
KLE Hospital, Belagavi, where they supposedly spent
Rs.2,00,000/-. However, he succumbed to the injuries.
They claimed that Mr.David was aged 70 years and had
retired as the Principal of a PU College and was drawing a
pension of Rs.17,509/- p.m. After retirement, the
deceased was working on honorarium as a Principal and
was drawing a salary of Rs.10,000/- p.m. They claimed as
a result of the death, they had lost the financial support of
Mr.David and hence, claimed compensation of Rs.20 lakhs.
3. The claim petition was resisted by the owner of
the offending vehicle as well as the Insurer. The claimant
No.1 was examined as PW-1 and she marked Ex.P.1 to
Ex.P.14(A) while the copy of the insurance was marked as
Ex.R.1. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the
Tribunal held that the claimant No.1 is entitled to the
family pension after the death of Mr.David and that the
loss of pensionary benefits cannot be taken into
consideration for the grant of compensation. It also held
that the claimants did not produce any material to
MFA No. 22979 of 2013
establish that the deceased was drawing honorarium of
Rs.12,000/- p.m. and taking into consideration the fact
that he was employed on honorarium, the Tribunal
considered the income of the deceased at a sum of
Rs.10,000/- p.m. and deducted 1/3rd towards his personal
expenses. Since, the deceased was 70 years, it did not
factor loss of future prospects and hence, awarded the
following compensation:
Sl.No. Heads Amount
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 3,90,000/-
2. Towards funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/-
3. Towards loss of estate Rs. 25,000/-
4. Towards consortium Rs. 10,000/-
5. Medical expenses Rs. 1,26,600/-
Total Rs. 5,66,600/-
4. The claimants being aggrieved by the
compensation awarded have filed this appeal.
5. The learned counsel for the claimants submitted
that the Tribunal ought to have considered the loss of the
pensionary benefits that the deceased was entitled to
while calculating the compensation. He further contended
that the Tribunal must have awarded adequate
MFA No. 22979 of 2013
compensation towards loss of parental and spousal
consortium as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., VS. NANU
RAM AND OTHERS reported in 2018 ACJ 2782.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Insurer
submitted that there was no material placed on record to
establish that the deceased was drawing salary of
Rs.10,000/- p.m. and therefore, having regard to the fact
that the deceased was a retired employee aged 70 years,
the Tribunal should not have assessed the income of the
deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month.
7. I have considered the submissions of the
learned counsel for the parties.
8. The documents placed on record indicate that
the deceased was an outstanding sports person. It also
indicates that he was employed as a Principal on
honorarium. The certificate issued by the institution
indicated that a sum of Rs.12,500/- p.m. was paid as
honorarium to the deceased. However, the employer of
MFA No. 22979 of 2013
the deceased was not examined. Therefore, the Tribunal
was justified in considering the income of the deceased at
a sum of Rs.10,000/- p.m. and was equally justified in
deducting 1/3rd of his salary towards his personal
expenses. Since, the claimant No.1 was entitled to the
family pension, the Tribunal was justified in not
considering the loss of pension. However, the Tribunal
ought to have awarded just compensation towards loss of
spousal and parental consortium and to this extent, the
impugned judgment and award deserves to be modified.
Hence, the compensation to which the claimants are
entitled to is re-determined as follows:
Sl.No. Heads Amount
1. Towards loss of dependency Rs. 3,90,000/-
2. Towards funeral expenses and
transportation of dead body Rs. 15,000/-
3. Towards loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-
4. Towards loss of spousal and
parental consortium Rs. 1,20,000/-
5. Towards medical expenses Rs. 1,26,600/-
Total Rs.6,66,600/-
9. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the
claimants is allowed in part and the compensation is
MFA No. 22979 of 2013
enhanced from Rs.5,66,600/- to a sum of Rs.6,66,600/-
and the enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the
rate of 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date
of realization and the shall be apportioned in the manner
as is done by the Tribunal.
10. The enhanced compensation along with accrued
interest shall be deposited before the Tribunal within one
month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
(Sd/-)
JUDGE
JM
