Karnataka High Court
Jayashri W/O Bharamu Savadatti vs Subhash Sidraya Salagar on 1 August, 2023
Bench: S.R. Krishna Kumar, G Basavaraja
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8035-DB
MFA No. 104380 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 102081 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 104380 OF 2019
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102081 OF 2017
IN MFA NO. 104380 OF 2019:
BETWEEN:
1. JAYASHRI W/O. BHARAMU SAVADATTI,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: AINAPUR, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BAELAGAVI.
2. SHEETAL D/O. BHARAMU SAVADATTI,
AGE: 12 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: AINAPUR, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BAELAGAVI.
3. SOUJANYA D/O. BHARAMU SAVADATTI,
AGE: 10 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: AINAPUR, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BAELAGAVI.
Digitally signed
by JAGADISH T
R (SINCE APPELLANT NO.2 & 3 ARE MINORS,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
REP. BY THEIR MOTHER I.E. APPELLANT NO.1)
KARNATAKA
Date: 2023.08.04
15:46:49 +0530 4. SHRIMANTI W/O. SIDRAY SAVADATTI,
AGE: 88 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: MOLE, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BAELAGAVI.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. YASH NADAKARNI FOR
SRI.VITTAL S.TELI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SUBHASH SIDRAYA SALAGAR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: MOLE, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8035-DB
MFA No. 104380 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 102081 of 2017
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
RAMDEV GALLI, BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH;
SRI.SURESH S.GUNDI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.03.2017 PASSED
IN MVC NO.1734/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO. 102081 OF 2017:
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
RAMDEV GALLI, BELAGAVI,
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE,
KUSUGAL ROAD, HUBBALLI-580023.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SURESH S.GUNDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. JAYASHRI W/O. BHARAMU SAVADATTI,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: AINAPUR, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BAELAGAVI-591304.
2. KUMARI. SHEETAL S/O. BHARAMU SAVADATTI,
AGE: 10 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: AINAPUR, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BAELAGAVI-591304.
3. KUM. SOUJANYA D/O. BHARAMU SAVADATTI,
AGE: 8 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: AINAPUR, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BAELAGAVI-591304.
(SINCE APPELLANT NO.2 & 3 BEING MINORS,
REP. BY THEIR MOTHER I.E. APPELLANT NO.1)
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8035-DB
MFA No. 104380 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 102081 of 2017
4. SMT. SHRIMANTI W/O. SIDRAY SAVADATTI,
AGE: 86 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: MOLE, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BAELAGAVI-591304.
5. MR. SUBHASH SIDARAY SALAGAR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: MOLE, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591304.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. YASH NADAKARNI FOR
SRI. VITTAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO R4;
NOTICE TO R5 IS SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.03.2017 PASSED
IN MVC NO.1734/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL VI, BELAGAVI, AWARDING THE COMPENSATON OF RS.
16,22,000/- ALONG WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 9% FROM THE
DATED OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Both these appeals arise out of impugned judgment and
award dated 18.03.2017 passed in MVC No.1734/2016 by
learned V Addl. District and Sessions Judge and VI Addl. MACT,
Belagavi, whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation in a
sum of Rs.16,22,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per
annum in favour of the claimants towards demise of late
Bharamu Savadatti, who died in a fatal road traffic accident
that occurred on 3.7.2016.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8035-DB
MFA No. 104380 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 102081 of 2017
2. The occurrence of the accident and resultant demise
of aforesaid late Bharamu Savadatti and offending vehicle
being insured with insurance company are not in dispute and
both these appeals are restricted to challenge to the
quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
3. MFA No.104380/2019 is preferred by the
appellants/claimants, while MFA No.102081/2017 is
preferred by the insurance company, both of whom are
aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal.
4. The material on record discloses that pursuant to
demise of aforesaid Bharamu Savadatti having expired in a
fatal road traffic accident that occurred on 3.7.2016 on
account of rash and negligent driving by driver of offending
vehicle owned by Subhash Sidaray Salagar, which was
insured with respondent No.2/National Insurance Company
Limited, claimants being wife, children and mother filed
claim petition seeking compensation towards his death. The
said claim petition having been contested by the insurance
company, the Tribunal answered issue No.1 in the
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8035-DB
MFA No. 104380 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 102081 of 2017
affirmative and came to the conclusion that the accident in
question was on account of rash and negligent driving of
driver of offending vehicle, which was insured with insurer.
Insofar as quantum of compensation is concerned, the
Tribunal awarded aforesaid compensation amount by
answering issue No.2 in the affirmative by holding as under:
11. ISSUE NO.2: The Petitioners have contended that the
deceased was an agricultural coolie and he was earning Rs.
15,000/- pm. PW.1 in her evidence has stated that, the
deceased was having she buffaloes and he was daily
supplying the milk to Gajanan Milk dairy and was earning
Rs.15,000/- pm. The petitioners herein have produced the
milk bills issued by Shri Gajanan Milk Dairy as per Ex.P.9
to 17. There is no pleading that the deceased was having
she buffaloes and he was supplying milk to Gajanan Milk
Dairy. In the absence of any pleadings in the petition, the
only inference could be draw that only to get more
compensation the petitioners have produced Ex.P.9 to 17
in the evidence. Therefore Ex.P.9 to 17 cannot be
considered. The petitioners have not produced any positive
evidence with regard to income of the deceased. In the
absence of any positive evidence with regard to income,
the court has to take into consideration the notional
income. The accident was taken place in the year 2016. In
the year 2016, even a coolie was earning Rs.200 to 250/-
per day. Taking into consideration the cost of living at
relevant point of time, I deem it just and reasonable to
take the notional income of the deceased as Rs.7,000/-
pm. As per Munna Lal Jain's case reported in 2015 ACJ 85
(Munna Lal Jain and another vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and
others) (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the
future prospects. The same has been followed by the
Hon'ble High Court (DB) in MFA 102137/2014 (MV)
(Ramesh & another Vs. Nandini Shiva & others). Therefore,
future prospects has to be considered. As per Sarala
Verma's case reported in ACJ 2009 page 1298, if the age
of the deceased is less than 40 years, 50% of the income
has to be considered towards future prospects. In the
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8035-DB
MFA No. 104380 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 102081 of 2017
present case, the petitioner herein has produced the
Aadhar card as per Ex.P.18. The said Ex.P.18 shows that
the deceased born in the year 1975. So it is clear that the
deceased was aged about 41 years as on the date of
accident. The counsel appearing for second respondent has
argued that the court cannot consider the future prospects
as per Munna Lal Jain's case, Delhi High Court has
considered the granting of future prospects and has held
that, Munna Lal Jain's case is not applicable and future
prospects cannot be considered. In Support of his
arguments he has cited the judgment reported in 2017 ACJ
67 Delhi (Bharti AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
Poonam and another). But the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka in its judgment rendered in MFA 102137/2014
(MV) Ramesh & another Vs. Nandini Shiva & others) dated
18.01.2016 (DB) has followed the Munna Lal Jain's case,
Therefore this court has to follow the said judgment. As
stated above, as per Sarala Verma case, the age of the
deceased is between 40 to 50 years, 30% has to be
considered towards future prospects. If Rs.7,000/- is
multiplied by 12, it would be Rs.84,000/-. 30% of
Rs.84,000/- would be Rs.25,200/-. Then the total income
of the deceased would be Rs.1,09,200/-. As per Sarala
Verma's case reported in ACJ 2009 page 1298, if the
dependants are 4 to 6, 4 has to be deducted in total
income towards living and personal expenses. In the
present case, petitioner No. 1 is the wife, petitioners 2 and
3 are the minor children and petitioner No.4 is the mother
of deceased and they have to be considered as
dependants. Therefore, has ¼ has to be deducted in
Rs.1,09,200/- towards living and personal expenses of the
deceased. ¼ of Rs.1,09,200/- would be Rs.27.300/-.
Then, the remaining amount would be Rs.81,900/-. As per
the above referred Sarala Verma case, the proper
multiplier applicable to the case on hand is 14, as the age
of the deceased is considered as 41 years. If Rs.81,900/-
is multiplied by 14, it would be Rs. 11.46,600/-. Therefore,
Rs. 11.46,600/- is awarded under the head of loss of
dependency. In Neeta's case reported in 2015 ACJ 598
(Neeta and others vs. Divisional Manager, Maharashtra
State Road Transport Corporation), the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has granted Rs.1,00,000/- to the spouse towards
loss of consortium, Rs.1,00,000/- each to the minor
children towards loss of love and affection, Rs.50,000/-
each to the parents under the head of loss of filial love and
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8035-DB
MFA No. 104380 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 102081 of 2017
affection, Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of estate and
Rs.25,000/- towards transportation of body and funeral
expenses. The same principles could be applied to the case
on hand. In the present case the petitioner No.1 is the wife
of deceased and she lost her husband at her young age.
Therefore, I deem it just and reasonable to award
Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium. The petitioners
2 and 3 are the minor children of deceased and they are
aged about 9 & 7 years. The petitioners 2 and 3 have lost
the love and affection of their father their tender age.
Therefore, I deem it just and reasonable to award
Rs.1,00,000/- each to petitioners 2 and 3 towards loss of
love and affection. The petitioner No.4 is the mother of
deceased and she lost her husband at her old age.
Therefore, I deem it just and reasonable to award
Rs.50,000/- towards loss of filial love and affection.
Further, I deem it just and reasonable to award
Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.25,000/-
towards transportation of body and funeral expenses. In
total the petitioners are entitled for compensation of
Rs.16,21,600/- and it is rounded of to Rs. 16.22,000/-
with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the
date of realization.
12. LIABILITY: The second respondent herein has
produced the insurance policy as per Ex.R.1. The said
Ex.R.1 shows that the insurance to the offending vehicle
was valid as on the date of accident. The second
respondent has contended that its liability is subject to
terms and conditions of insurance policy and holding of
valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending
vehicle by its driver. But, there is no evidence on the part
of second respondent to establish that the rider of
offending vehicle had no valid driving licence to ride the
offending vehicle and the first respondent who is the owner
of offending vehicle has violated the terms and conditions
of insurance policy. Therefore, it could be safely held that
the first respondent being the owner of offending vehicle
has not violated the terms and conditions of insurance
policy. The first respondent being the owner and second
respondent being the insurer of offending vehicle are
jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. However,
second respondent being the insurer of offending vehicle is
under an obligation to indemnify the first respondent and
second respondent alone shall deposit the compensation
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8035-DB
MFA No. 104380 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 102081 of 2017
amount. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.2 in the
affirmative.
5. Upon re-appreciation, re-evaluation and
reconsideration of the entire material on record, we are of
the considered opinion that the impugned judgment and
award cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity
nor can the same be said to be perversity, capricious having
resulted in miscarriage of justice, particularly, since the
Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and
therefore, impugned judgment and award does not warrant
any interference by this Court in the present appeals.
6. Though learned counsel for the appellant/insurance
company submitted that interest awarded on the
compensation amount at the rate of 9% per annum by the
Tribunal is excessive, in the peculiar and special facts and
circumstances of the instant case, which indicates that the
deceased was a sole bread earner and had left behind aged
mother, unemployed wife and minor children, we are of the
view that the impugned judgment and award directing
payment of interest on the compensation amount at the rate
of 9% per annum also does not warrant interference at the
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8035-DB
MFA No. 104380 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 102081 of 2017
hands of this Court in the facts and circumstances of the
present case.
7. It is, however, made it clear that awarding interest
at the rate of 9% per annum by the Tribunal and confirmed
by this Court shall not be treated as precedent nor having
presidential value in any circumstances whatsoever.
Accordingly, we do not find any merit in these two appeals
and same are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, both
appeals are dismissed. The amount in deposit, if any, is
directed to be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal
forthwith for disbursement.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
JTR
