Karnataka High Court
Smt.Sudha W/O. Nijaguni ... vs Sri.Shriram S/O. Moreshwar Soma on 12 September, 2022
Bench: S G Pandit, Anant Ramanath Hegde
-1-
MFA No. 100407 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100407 OF 2019 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.SUDHA W/O. NIJAGUNI BALAPPANAVAR
AGE:30 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK,
2. KUMAR YAMANAPPA S/O. NIJAGUNI BALAPPANAVAR
AGE:5 YEARS,
3. KUMARI SPURTHI D/O. NIJAGUNI BALAPPANAVAR
AGE:3 YEARS,
(APPL NO.2 AND 3 ARE MINOR REP BY APPL.NO.1)
4. SMT BOURAWWA W/O. YAMANAPPA BALAPPANAVAR
AGE:55 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK,
ALL ARE R/O. BUDNI PD, TQ:MAHALINGAPUR,
DIST:BAGALKOT-587312.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SIDDAPPA SAJJAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI.SHRIRAM S/O. MORESHWAR SOMA
AGE:49 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS,
Digitally signed by J
MAMATHA
NO.G-05, VAIBHAVI APP,
11TH LANE, RAJARAMPURI,KOLHAPUR-416008.
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Dharwad.
Date: 2022.09.17 11:25:19
+0530
(MAHARASHTRA STATE)
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
D3-D4,2ND FLOOR, ROYAL PRESTIGE,
SYKES EXTENSION, SHAHAPURI,
KOLHAPUR-416008, (MAHARASHTRA STATE)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B C JNANAYYASWAMI, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
(BY SMT. ANUSHA, ADV. FOR SRI. S.K.KAYAKAMATH, ADV. FOR R2)
-2-
MFA No. 100407 of 2019
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.08.2018 PASSED
IN MVC NO.444/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-XIV, MUDHOL, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
S.G. PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Though this appeal is listed for admission, it is taken
up for final disposal, with the consent of learned counsel
for both the parties.
2. The claimants are before this Court praying for
enhancement of compensation, not being satisfied with the
compensation awarded under judgment and award dated
07.08.2018 passed in MVC No.444/2016 on the file of the
learned Member, MACT-XIV, Mudhol (for short, 'Tribunal').
3. The claimants, who are the wife, minor children
and mother of the deceased Nijaguni Balappanavar, filed a
claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 seeking compensation for the accidental death of
Nijaguni Balappanavar that took place on 27.04.2016
MFA No. 100407 of 2019
involving Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing Chasis No.
MBLHA11ERCPE02496 and Engine No.HA11EDC9E02621
and Tata Nano Car bearing registration No.MH-09/CM-
4476. It is stated that the deceased was aged about 32
years as on the date of the accident and he was working
as Mechanic in the Garage and earning Rs.30,000/- per
month.
appeared through their learned counsel and filed their
separate statement of objections denying the allegations
made in the claim petition. Respondent No.2-Insurane
company inter-alia contended that due to negligent riding
of motorcycle by deceased himself, accident took place. It
was further contended that the claimants colluding with
the police officials have filed false claim petition. Thus,
prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
5. Before the Tribunal, 1st claimant-wife of the
deceased examined herself as PW1 and got marked the
MFA No. 100407 of 2019
documents as Exs.P1 to P6. Respondents examined two
witnesses as RW1 and RW2 and marked the documents as
Ex.R1 to R6. The Tribunal based on the material evidence
on record awarded total compensation of Rs.15,10,000/-
with interest at 9% per annum on the following heads:
Loss of Dependency Rs.14,40,000/-
Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of Consortium Rs. 40,000/-
Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/-
Total Rs.15,10,000/-
6. While awarding the above compensation, the
Tribunal assessed the notional income of the deceased at
Rs.10,000/- per month, deducted 1/4th towards personal
and living expenses of the deceased and applied multiplier
of 16. The claimants not being satisfied with the quantum
of compensation awarded by the Tribunal are before this
Court praying for enhancement of compensation.
7. Heard Sri. Siddappa Sajjan, learned counsel for
the appellants-claimants as well as Smt. Anusha, learned
MFA No. 100407 of 2019
counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company and
perused the appeal papers.
8. Sri. Siddappa Sajjan, learned counsel for the
appellants-claimants would submit that the notional
income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at
Rs.10,000/- per month is on the lower side, since the
deceased was working as Mechanic in the Garage and
earning Rs.30,000/- per month. He further submitted that
in the light of decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay
Sethi & Others1, the claimants would be entitled to an
addition of 40% of the assessed income towards future
prospects. He further submits that the claimants being
wife, minor children and mother of the deceased would be
entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards spousal, parental &
filial consortium as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs.
AIR 2017 SC 5157
MFA No. 100407 of 2019
Nanu Ram and Others2. Thus, he prays for allowing the
appeal.
9. Smt. Anusha, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-Insurance Company supporting the impugned
judgment and award of the Tribunal would contend that
even though it is stated that the deceased was earning
Rs.30,000/- per month by doing mechanic work in the
Garage, the claimants have not produced any cogent or
acceptable document to prove the same. She further
submits that in the absence of any documentary and
cogent evidence to establish the income of the deceased,
the Tribunal has rightly assessed notional income of the
deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month, which is just and
proper. She further submits that the Tribunal on
appreciation of the material on record has rightly awarded
compensation under various heads, which does not call for
any interference at the hands of this Court. Thus, she
prays for dismissal of the appeal.
2018 ACJ 2782
MFA No. 100407 of 2019
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the appeal papers, the only point that
would fall for consideration in this appeal is, whether the
claimants would be entitled for enhanced compensation?
11. Our answer to the above point is in the
affirmative for the following reasons.
12. There is no dispute with regard to the accident
and accidental death of Nijaguni Balappanavar. It is the
contention of the appellants-claimants that the notional
income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at
Rs.10,000/- per month is on the lower side, since the
deceased was working as Mechanic in the Garage, earning
Rs.30,000/- per month. To substantiate the said
contention, the claimants have not produced any cogent or
acceptable document. However, in the absence of any
documentary evidence to establish the income of the
deceased, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the notional
MFA No. 100407 of 2019
income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month, which
in our view is just and proper and requires no interference.
13. Further, the Tribunal committed an error in not
adding 40% of the assessed income towards future
prospects of the deceased. In the case of Pranay Sethi
(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that
wherever the deceased was below the age of 40 years, the
claimants would be entitled for addition of 40% of the
assessed income towards future prospects. In the instant
case, admittedly, the deceased was aged 32 years as on
the date of the accident. Therefore, the claimants would
be entitled for addition of 40% of the assessed income
towards future prospects. Deduction of 1/4th made by the
Tribunal towards personal and living expenses of the
deceased and also multiplier of 16 adopted by the Tribunal
is not disturbed which is just and proper. Thus, the
claimants would be entitled for compensation on the head
of loss of dependency at Rs.20,16,000/- (Rs.10,000 +
40% x 12 x 16 x 3/4).
MFA No. 100407 of 2019
14. It is well settled law that the claimants being
wife, minor children & mother of the deceased would be
entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards spousal, parental &
filial consortium as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra).
The compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate
and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses awarded by
the Tribunal is just and proper and same is undisturbed.
Thus, the claimants would be entitled for modified
compensation on the following heads:
Sl.No. Particulars Amount
1. Loss of dependency Rs.20,16,000/-
(Rs.10,000 (income per
month) + Rs.4,000 (40%
future prospects) =14,000 x 12
(months) x 16 (multiplier) x
3/4 (1/4th deduction)
2. Loss of estate & Funeral Rs. 30,000/-
expenses
3. Spousal, Parental & Filial Rs. 1,60,000/-
consortium (Rs.40,000/- each
to claimants 1 to 4)
Total Rs.22,06,000/-
- 10 -
MFA No. 100407 of 2019
15. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to total
compensation of Rs.22,06,000/- as against
Rs.15,10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
16. The Tribunal while awarding compensation
granted rate of interest at 9% per annum. Taking note of
the present rate of Bank interest, we are inclined to
reduce the rate of interest on the compensation amount
from 9% awarded by the Tribunal to 6% per annum.
17. Hence, we pass the following:
ORDER
a) The above appeal is allowed in part.
b) The impugned judgment and award of
the Tribunal is modified to an extent
that the claimants are entitled to total
compensation of Rs.22,06,000/- as
against Rs.15,10,000/- awarded by the
Tribunal.
c) The enhanced compensation amount
will bear interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date of claim petition
till date of realization.
d) The respondent-Insurance Company
shall deposit the enhanced
- 11 -
MFA No. 100407 of 2019
compensation amount with accrued
interest before the Tribunal within six
weeks from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this judgment.
e) Apportionment, deposit and
disbursement of the enhanced
compensation shall be made as per the
award of the Tribunal.
f) Draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
JTR
