Karnataka High Court
Basamma And Ors vs Ravindrasa And Anr on 6 December, 2023
Author: M.G.S.Kamal
Bench: M.G.S.Kamal
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9036
MFA No. 201345 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201345 OF 2022 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. BASAMMA
W/O HUCHESH @ HUCHAPPA GANIGER,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: H.H. WORK,
2. BASAVARAJ @ BASAVANT
S/O HUCHAPPA GANIGER,
AGE: 16 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
M/G BY APPELLANT NO.1,
3. SMITA D/O HUCHAPPA GANIGER,
AGE: 13 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
M/G BY APPELLANT NO.1,
Digitally signed
by LUCYGRACE 4. HANAMANT
Location: HIGH S/O HUCHAPPA GANIGER,
COURT OF AGE: 10 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
KARNATAKA M/G BY APPELLANT NO.1,
ALL ARE R/O CHITTARAGI,
TQ. HUNAGUND, DIST. BAGALKOT.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SANGANAGOUDA V. BIRADAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAVINDRASA
S/O ARJUNSA SHINGARI,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9036
MFA No. 201345 of 2022
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O SADASHIV NAGARM, HUBLI,
DIST. DHARWAD- 580 021.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
1ST FLOOR, SANGAM BUILDING,
S S FRONT ROAD, VIJAYAPUR - 586 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(SRI. MOHD. ABDUL QUAYUM, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
V/O DATED 01.09.2022, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ENCHANCE THE COMPENSATION
AMOUNT PAYABLE TO THE APPELLANT BY SUITABLY
MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.09.2021
PASSED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NO.XIII
AT VIJAYAPUR IN MVC NO.526/2018.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appellants/claimants being wife and children of
deceased Huchesh @ Huchappa are before this Court,
seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the
Member, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal No.XIII,
Vijayapura (for short 'Tribunal') in MVC No.526/2018 by its
judgment and award dated 04.09.2021.
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9036
2. The accident in question that occurred on
17.05.2018 involving the motorcycle bearing Reg.
No.KA-29/EA-1512 and Innova Car bearing Reg.
No.KA-36/N-6519 resulting in the death of said Huchappa
is not in dispute.
3. The claimants being wife and children of the
deceased filed the claim petition, seeking compensation of
Rs.50,00,000/- on the premise that the deceased was
working as a Lab Technician and had completed Diploma
in Medical Lab and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month as
a Lab Technician and he also owned agricultural land
growing commercial crops and was earning Rs.20,000/-
there from. Thus, in aggregate, the deceased was earning
Rs.30,000/- per month.
4. The Tribunal having held that the accident in
question had occurred on account of rash and negligent
driving of the offending Innova car by its driver resulting
in death of the deceased, proceeded to assess the income
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9036
of the deceased. The claimants have produced documents
in the nature of RTC extracts, deeds of sale, receipt issued
from one Balaji Sugars, Yaragal, valuation report in
respect of immovable properties etc., to justify the claim
of deceased having had income of Rs.30,000/- per month.
However, the Tribunal declined to accept the contention of
the claimants with regard to the income of the deceased
on the basis of the said documents. However, taking into
consideration the chart prepared by the Karnataka State
Legal Services Authority and also the year of accident
being of 2018, the Tribunal has assessed the income at
Rs.11,750/- per month and proceeded to determine the
compensation thereon. Being aggrieved by the same, the
claimants are before this Court.
5. Sri Sanganagouda V. Biradar, learned counsel
appearing for the appellants/claimants submits that
despite production of sufficient material evidence with
regard to qualification, earning ability and the source of
income of the deceased, the Tribunal grossly erred in
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9036
assessing the notional income of the deceased at
Rs.11,750/- per month. He submits that the Tribunal has
also not awarded future prospects and compensation
under conventional heads as enunciated by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v.
Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC
680 and in Magma General Insurance Company
Limited vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and others
reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130. Hence, seeks for
enhancement of compensation.
6. Per contra, Sri Mohd. Abdul Quayum, learned
counsel appearing for respondent No.2 - Insurance
Company submits that mere production of documents in
the nature of certificate of qualification, RTC extracts and
deeds of sale, would not be sufficient to accept the claim
of the claimants regarding the income of the deceased. He
submits that the documents, such as Bank Account
Statement or the Income Tax Returns ought to have been
produced and in the absence of the same, no fault can be
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9036
found with the method adopted by the Tribunal in relying
upon the chart prepared by the KSLSA. Hence, he submits
that no grounds are made out, warranting interference.
Hence, seeks for dismissal of the appeal.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the records.
8. The only question that requires consideration in
this appeal is, whether the appellants/claimants are
entitled for enhancement of compensation?
9. From the records, it is revealed that the
deceased had completed his Diploma in Lab Technician
and also owned immovable properties. He was in the
process of construction of the house. The revenue records
produced in the nature of RTC extracts would reveal that
he owned immovable properties. Though the Tribunal has
taken note of these documents, but however, has not
accepted the same in justification of the claim of income of
the deceased being Rs.30,000/- per month. It is not the
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9036
case that there was no material evidence produced by the
claimants at all with regard to the qualification and the
source of income of the deceased. Merely because
documents in the nature of Bank Account Statement,
Income Tax Returns are not produced, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, considering the material
evidence produced on record, it cannot be said that the
deceased did not have any ability or source of income.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the
case and the material evidence placed before the Court,
this Court is of the considered view that the income of the
deceased be assessed at Rs.14,000/- per month, which
would be just and proper. The deceased was aged about
39 years. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of National Insurance Company
Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017)
16 SCC 680, 40% of the income has to be added towards
future prospects. The deduction of '1/4th' towards personal
and living expenses of the deceased and the multiplier of
'15' applied by the Tribunal are just and proper. Calculated
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9036
as above, the appellants would be entitled for total
compensation of Rs.26,46,000/- (Rs.14,000 + 40% x 12 x
15 x 3/4) towards loss of dependency.
10. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of
Rs.2,17,321/- towards medical expenses. The same is
maintained as it is.
11. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in case of Magma General Insurance
Company Limited (supra), which is subsequently clarified
in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Satinder Kaur
alias Satwinder Kaur and others reported in AIR
2020 SC 3076, claimants being wife and children of the
deceased are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each, aggregating a
sum of Rs.1,60,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium
and parental consortium respectively.
12. Further, the appellants are entitled for
Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/-
towards funeral expenses.
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9036
13. That apart, in view of the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra),
there shall be increment of 10% on the compensation
awarded under conventional heads.
14. Thus, the claimants are held entitled for a total
compensation of Rs.30,72,321/- instead of Rs.18,80,571/-
awarded by the Tribunal as under:
Sl. Heads By By
No. Tribunal this Court
1 Loss of dependency Rs.15,86,250/- Rs.26,46,000/-
2 Medical Expenses Rs.2,17,321/- Rs.2,17,321/-
3 Loss of consortium Rs.44,000/- Rs.1,60,000/-
4 Loss of estate Rs.16,500/- Rs.15,000/-
5 Funeral expenses Rs.16,500/- Rs.15,000/-
Addition of 10% Rs.19,000/-
Total Rs.18,80,571/- Rs.30,72,321/-
15. For the foregoing reasons, the following:
ORDER
a) The appeal is partly allowed.
b) The appellants/claimants are held entitled for a
total compensation of Rs.30,72,321/- instead of
Rs.18,80,571/- awarded by the Tribunal with
interest at 6% per annum from the date of
claim petition till realization.
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9036
c) Respondent No.2 - Insurance Company shall
deposit the aforesaid compensation amount
within a period six weeks from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this judgment.
d) The award of the Tribunal is modified
accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
LG
