Karnataka High Court
Shantkumar S/O Ramshetty Biradar ... vs Mr. Goutam S/O Lingappa Maisalge ... on 6 January, 2023
Bench: Sreenivas Harish Kumar, T G Gowda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.200085/2016 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. Shantkumar S/o Ramshetty Biradar,
Age: 57 years, Occ: Agriculture,
2. Mahantabai W/o Shantkumar Biradar,
Age: 52 years, Occ: Household,
Both R/o. Bagduri, Tq: Basavakalyan,
Dist: Bidar-584101.
... Appellants
(By Sri Babu H.Metagudda, Advocate)
AND:
1. Mr. Goutam S/o Lingappa Maisalge,
Age: 42 years, Occ: Owner of
Tata Sumo No.MH-04/AA-4992,
R/o. Jakekur, Tq: Omerga,
Dist: Osmanabad (MS)-484101.
MFA No.200085/2016
2
2. The Manager,
United India Insurance Co. Ltd,
S.No.243, Laxmi Palace First Floor,
Karanja Chowk Budhwar Peth,
Vagdari Road,
Akkalkot-418216.
... Respondents
(By Sri Sudarshan M., Advocate for R2:
R1-Notice dispensed with v/o. dtd.27.03.2018)
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
173(1) of MV Act, praying to allow this appeal and modify the
judgment and award dated 03.09.2015 passed in MVC
No.46/2014 by Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT at
Basavakalyan. And enhancing the compensation from
Rs.9,29,000/- with 6% interest to Rs.60,00,000/- with 12%
interest and etc.
This appeal coming on for hearing, through physical
hearing/video conference, this day T.G. Shivashankare
Gowda, J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
In this appeal the appellant has challenged the
judgment dated 03.09.2015 passed in MVC No.46 of 2014 on
MFA No.200085/2016
the file of the Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT,
Basavakalyana (Hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal' for
short).
2. The parties will be referred with respect to their
status before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.
3. Briefly stated, the facts are that, petitioners are
the parents of Eranna, the deceased. Eranna suffered severe
injuries in a road accident that took place on 04-10-2013 at
Mudbi-Basavakalyana road hit by TATA Sumo bearing
registration No.MH-04/AA-4992 against his TVS super XL. He
succumbed to injuries at the spot. Petitioners claimed
compensation of Rs.60,00,000/-. They pleaded that deceased
was aged 24 years, working as sandblaster in Kuwaith and
earning Rs.19,000/- per month. The claim was opposed by
the Insurance Company. The Tribunal awarded
Rs.9,29,000/- with 6% interest.
MFA No.200085/2016
4. The petitioners have pleaded inadequacy in the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal, income taken on
lower side, future prospectors was not added, less amounts
have been awarded towards conventional heads.
5. According to the learned counsel for petitioners,
the deceased was drawing salary of Rs.19,000/- per month,
is a passport holder, he has permanent appointment, future
prospectus of 50% is not taken, conventional heads are on
lower side and accordingly he sought for re-assessment and
enhancement.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for Insurance
Company contended that the consideration of future
prospects and also the conventional heads has been settled,
the income of the deceased at Kuwait even taken expenses
will be more than 75%, Tribunal correctly assessed the
income an supported the impugned judgment.
MFA No.200085/2016
7. We have given our anxious consideration to the
arguments addressed on behalf of the parties and perused
the records.
8. Ex.P13 is the employment agreement issued by
ABJ engineering and contracting company KSC, the terms of
the agreement did not disclose the actuals of Salary, the
company is a private one, employment is attached with
termination with notice. The petitioners have not produced
the bank account details of the deceased to establish salary
credits and his savings. Ex.P13 shows the deceased agreed
for be paid at KD85 monthly with free other facilities. Ex.P12
is the Passport of the deceased, shows he had returned to
India on 29-9-2013 due to expiry of VISA on 23-10-2013 and
the accident was on 04-10-2013. There is no evidence
regarding renewal of VISA and also the intention of the
deceased to go back to Kuwait for employment. It is argued
MFA No.200085/2016
by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Tribunal ought
to have considered all these aspects to consider the income
of the deceased as sum of Rs.19,000/-. To the pointed
question whether VISA and the employment agreement was
renewed, there is no answer from the learned counsel for the
petitioners. The Tribunal considered the income of the
decease at Rs.8,000/-. Having regard to the evidence that
the deceased was at abroad, returned home just 5 days prior
to the accident, the income so assessed by the Tribunal is on
the lower side, and it may be assessed at Rs.10,000/- per
month.
9. As seen from the impugned judgment, the
Tribunal has not considered future prospects and also the
conventional heads. Future prospectus of 50% cannot be
considered as the employment was on a foreign shore,
terminable by notice and it cannot be treated as permanent
MFA No.200085/2016
job. By applying the principles laid down in National
Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and
Others -2017 ACJ 680 future prospects should be taken as
40% for age below 40 years. There is dispute with regard to
age of the deceased was 24. Hence, applicable multiplier as
per decision of Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v.
DTC- (2009)6 SCC 121, is '18'.
10. If all these factors are taken into consideration the
assessment of loss of dependency would be: Rs.10,000/-
(Income of the deceased) + Rs.4,000/- (40% Future
Prospects) = Rs.14,000/- per month. The petitioners are the
parents of the deceased and the deceased was a bachelor,
1/2 has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the
deceased. It comes to Rs.7,000/- per month and
Rs.84,000/- per year multiplied by '18', it comes to
Rs.15,12,000/-. Under the conventional heads, each of the
MFA No.200085/2016
petitioners is entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards loss of love and
affection, towards loss of estate and funeral expenses
Rs.15,000/- each. The total compensation comes to
Rs.15,12,000/- + Rs.1,10,000/- = Rs.16,22,000/-, which is
the just compensation to which the petitioners are entitled.
The appeal filed by the petitioners deserves to be allowed in
part by modifying the compensation from Rs.9,29,000/- to
Rs.16,22,000/-.
11. In the result, the following:
ORDER
The appeal is allowed in part.
The judgment and award passed by the
Tribunal is modified.
The petitioners are entitled to enhanced
compensation of Rs.6,93,000/- with interest at the
rate of 6% per year.
MFA No.200085/2016
Rest of the judgment and award of the Tribunal
is kept intact.
Office is directed to transfer the amount if any
in deposit, to the Tribunal, forthwith and also
transmit the records.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SBS*
