Karnataka High Court
Smt. Bahanabi W/O Late Dodda Basha ... vs Veeranna Gouda S/O Virupakshappa ... on 6 January, 2023
Bench: J.M.Khazi
1 MFA No.200988/2015
C/w
MFA NO.200989/2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
MFA No.200988/2015 (MV)
C/W
MFA NO.200989/2015 (MV)
IN MFA NO.200988/2015:
BETWEEN
1. SMT. BAHANABI W/O LATE DODDA BASHA
@ DODDAMANI BASHA SAB
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
2. HUSEN SAB S/O LATE DODDA
BASHA @ DODDAMANI BASHA SAB
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL.,
3. RASUL SAB S/O LATE DODDA
BASHA @ DODDAMANI BASHA SAB
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC : AGRIL.,
4. MASTANA S/O LATE DODDA
BASHA @ DODDAMANI BASHA SAB
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC : AGRIL.,
5. MOHAMMED S/O LATE DODDA
BASHA @ DODDAMANI BASHA SAB
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC : AGRI.,
ALL ARE R/O RAMADURGA VILLAGE
TQ : DEODURGA, NOW R/O KALMALA VILLAGE
TQ. & DIST. RAICHUR-584101
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI BABU H. METAGUDDA, ADVOCATE)
2 MFA No.200988/2015
C/w
MFA NO.200989/2015
AND
1. VEERANNA GOUDA S/O VIRUPAKSHAPPA GOUDA
AGE: MAJOR, OCC : OWNER OF
BOLERO ZLX NO.KA-36/N-1574
R/O RAMADURGA VILLAGE
TQ. DEODURGA, DIST. RAICHUR
2. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE
INSURANCE CO.LTD.
SUNDARAM TOWERS
NO.45 AND 46, WHITES ROAD
CHENNAI-600014
3. CHANNABASAYYA S/O SIDRAMAYYA
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC : DRIVER
R/O: CHITRALI, TQ. SINDHANUR
DIST. RAICHUR-584101
(DRIVER OF BUS NO.KA-36/A-4826)
4. THE HEAD MASTER
SNEHAJYOTHI SCHOOL, POTNAL
TQ. SINDHANUR
DIST. RAICHUR-584101
(OWNER OF BUS NO.KA-36/A-4826)
...RESPONDENTS
(SRI C. S. KALBURGI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1, R3 & R4 D/W V/O DTD.21.06.2019)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V. ACT,
PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 22.01.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.595/2013
BY THE II-ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, RAICHUR AND
ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION FROM RS.5,71,000/- WITH 6%
INTEREST TO RS.14,99,000/- WITH 12% INTEREST.
3 MFA No.200988/2015
C/w
MFA NO.200989/2015
IN MFA No.200989/2015:
BETWEEN
1. MAHIBUBI W/O LATE SILAARSAB
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEHOLD
2. BAVASAB S/O LATE SILAARSAB
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC : AGRIL.,
3. PATIMA D/O LATE SILAARSAB
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEHOLD
4. LAALUSAB @ LAALSAB S/O LATE SILAARSAB
AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC : AGRIL.,
5. HUSSAINSAB S/O LATE SILAARSAB
AGE: 19 YEARS MINOR, OCC : NIL
U/G OF APPELANT NO.1
ALL ARE R/O : RAMADURGA VILLAGE,
TQ. DEODURGA
NOW R/O: KALMALA VILLAGE
TQ. & DIST. RAICHUR-584101
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI BABU H. METAGUDDA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. VEERANNA GOUDA S/O VIRUPAKSHAPPA GOUDA
AGE : MAJOR, OCC : OWNER OF
BOLERO ZLX NO.KA-36/N-1574
R/O RAMADURGA VILLAGE
TQ. DEODURGA, DIST. RAICHUR
2. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE
INSURANCE CO.LTD.
SUNDARAM TOWERS
NO.45 AND 46, WHITES ROAD
CHENNAI-600014
4 MFA No.200988/2015
C/w
MFA NO.200989/2015
3. CHANNABASAYYA S/O SIDRAMAYYA
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC : DRIVER
R/O: CHITRALI, TQ. SINDHANUR
DIST. RAICHUR-584101
(DRIVER OF BUS NO.KA-36/A-4826)
4. THE HEAD MASTER
SNEHAJYOTHI SCHOOL POTNAL
TQ : SINDHANUR,
DIST : RAICHUR-584101
(OWNER OF BUS NO.KA-36/A-4826)
...RESPONDENTS
(SRI C. S. KALBURGI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1, R3 & R4 D/W V/O DTD. 21.06.2019)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V. ACT,
PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 22.01.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.596/2013
BY THE II-ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, RAICHUR AND
ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION FROM RS.7,87,000/- WITH 6%
INTEREST TO RS.14,99,000/- WITH 12% INTEREST.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Since these two appeals are arising out of a common
accident and a common judgment, they are clubbed
together and decided by a common order.
C/w
MFA NO.200989/2015
2. These two appeals are by the claimants
seeking enhancement of the compensation in respect of
motor vehicle accident dated 18.09.2013.
3. For the sake of convenience the parties are
referred to by their rank before the Tribunal.
4. Appellants in MFA.No.200988/2015 are
petitioners in MVC.No.595/2013.
5. Appellants in MFA.No.200989/2015 are the
petitioners in MVC.No.596/2013.
6. FACTS: It is the case of the petitioners that on
18.09.2013, deceased Doddabasha @ Daddamani Basha,
Silaarsab, Basavaraj @ Basanna and Basavaraj S/o
Chatrappa along with one Rasool went to Gorebal Camp of
Sindhanur Taluk to watch bullock procession held during
Ganesh festival. They availed Bolero Jeep bearing
registration No.KA-36/N-1574 (hereinafter referred to as
offending vehicle) from their common friend
Veeranagowda, who is respondent No.1. It was driven by
C/w
MFA NO.200989/2015
one Ganganagowda. While they were returning from
Gorebal Camp, the offending vehicle was driven in a rash
or negligent manner and it dashed against a school bus
bearing registration No.KA-36/A-4826 (hereinafter referred
to as School bus) coming from the opposite side. In the
said accident driver of the offending vehicle Gaganagowda
and Silaarsab died on the spot. Doddabasha @ Doddamani
Basha Sab died on his way to the hospital. Others
sustained injuries. In respect of the accident, the
concerned police initially registered the case against the
driver of the offending vehicle as well as School bus. Since
driver of the offending vehicle died, ultimately charge
sheet is filed against driver of the School bus as accused
No.2.
7. Petitioners arraigned both the owner and
insurer of the offending vehicle and the School bus as
respondents and sought for compensation. As wife and
children of deceased, petitioners are entitled for
compensation.
C/w
MFA NO.200989/2015
8. Though duly served respondent No.1 did not
appear before the Tribunal.
9. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 did not choose to file
written statement.
10. Respondent No.2 filed written statement
denying petition averments. It contended that accident
occurred due the sole negligence on the part of the driver
of the School bus. Therefore, case was registered against
driver of the School bus as accused No.2. The inmates of
the offending vehicle were unauthorised passengers. The
driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid
driving license.
11. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed
necessary issues.
12. In order to prove their case in
MVC.No.595/2013, PW-1 is examined and Ex.P1 to 12 are
marked. In MVC.No.596/2013, one witness is examined as
PW-2 and Ex.P13 to 16 are marked.
C/w
MFA NO.200989/2015
13. On behalf of respondent No.2 one witness is
examined as RW-1 and Ex.R1 is marked.
14. Vide the impugned judgment and award the
Tribunal dismissed the petitions as against respondent
No.4 by holding that the accident occurred due to the rash
or negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle.
It partly allowed the petitioners granting compensation in a
sum of Rs.5,71,000/- in MVC.No.595/2013 and
Rs.7,87,000/- in MVC.No.596/2013. The details of
compensation granted are as under:
In MVC.No.595/2013:
Heads Amount
In Rs.
Loss of dependency 4,86,000/-
Loss of estate 10,000/-
Loss of consortium 25,000/-
Loss of love & affection 25,000/-
Funeral expenses & 25,000/-
transportation
Total 5,71,000/-
C/w
MFA NO.200989/2015
In MVC.No.596/2013:
Heads Amount
In Rs.
Loss of dependency 7,02,000/-
Loss of estate 10,000/-
Loss of consortium 25,000/-
Loss of love & affection 25,000/-
Funeral expenses & 25,000/-
transportation
Total 7,87,000/-
15. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioners are
before this Court contending that the compensation
granted under all the heads are on the lower side. Having
regard to the age of the deceased, the income of the
deceased taken is on the lower side. Future prospects are
not added. Petitioners are also entitled for consortium and
sought for enhancing the compensation.
16. On the other hand learned counsel
representing respondent No.2 supported the impugned
judgment and award and sought for dismissal of the
appeals.
C/w
MFA NO.200989/2015
17. Heard arguments and perused the record.
18. Respondent No.2 has not challenged the
impugned judgment and award and thereby the findings of
the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the sole
rash or negligent driving by the driver of the offending
vehicle has remained unchallenged.
19. Even otherwise based on the oral and
documentary evidence placed on record, the Tribunal has
come to a correct conclusion that accident occurred due to
the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and
exonerated the driver and insurer of the School bus.
20. In the light of the specific grounds of appeal
urged by the petitioners, let me examine whether the
compensation granted under the following various heads is
just and reasonable or it calls for any interference by this
Court.
C/w
MFA NO.200989/2015
Compensation in MVC.No.595/2013:
21. Loss of dependency: Based on the evidence
placed on record, the Tribunal has correctly taken the age
of deceased as 60 years and therefore multiplier 9 taken is
correct. Though the petitioners claim that deceased was
earning Rs.15,000/- p.m., they failed to produce any
evidence to that effect. Therefore, the Tribunal has taken
the income as Rs.6,000/- p.m. However, having regard to
the fact that the accident is of the year 2013, based on the
minimum wages, it would be appropriate to take the
income of the deceased as Rs.7,000/-p.m. Having regard
to the number of dependents, 1/4th deduction given
towards personal and living expenses is correct. Since
deceased was aged 60 years and was self-employed, 10%
of his income is required to be added towards future
prospects. With these components, the compensation
under the head loss of dependency is Rs.6,23,700/- as
against Rs.4,86,000/- granted by the Tribunal.
C/w
MFA NO.200989/2015
22. Loss of consortium: Since the deceased has
left behind his wife and four children, as per the decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance
Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others 1
(Pranay Sethi's case), and Magma General
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram Alias
Chuhru Ram And Others2 (Magma Insurance
Company case), each of them are entitled for
compensation in a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of
consortium. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for
compensation in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- under the head
loss of consortium as against Rs.20,000/- granted by the
Tribunal.
23. Loss to estate and funeral expenses: When
major compensation is granted under the head loss of
dependency, Rs.15,000/- each is required to be granted
under the conventional heads of loss to estate and funeral
expenses (which includes transportation charges).
(2017) 16 SCC 680
C/w
MFA NO.200989/2015
Therefore, compensation under the head loss of estate is
enhanced to Rs.15,000/- as against Rs.10,000/- granted
by the Tribunal and reduced to Rs.15,000/- as against
Rs.25,000/- granted by the Tribunal.
24. Loss of love and affection: Since
compensation is granted under the head loss of
consortium, Rs.25,000/- separately granted by the
Tribunal under the head loss of love and affection is
disallowed.
25. Thus in all petitioners in MVC.No.595/2013 are
entitled for total compensation in a sum of Rs.8,53,700/-
as against Rs.5,71,000/- granted by the Tribunal as
detailed below:
Heads Amount granted Amount granted
by the Tribunal by this Court
In Rs. In Rs.
Loss of dependency 4,86,000/- 6,23,700/-
Loss of estate 10,000/- 15,000/-
Loss of consortium 25,000/- 2,00,000/-
Loss of love & affection 25,000/- Disallowed
Funeral expenses & 25,000/- 15,000/-
transportation
TOTAL 5,71,000/- 8,53,700/-
(2018) 18 SCC 130
C/w
MFA NO.200989/2015
Compensation in MVC.No.596/2013:
26. Loss of dependency: Based on the PM
report the Tribunal has correctly taken the age of deceased
as 50 years and muliplier 13. Though petitioners claim that
he was earning Rs.15,000/- p.m. In the absence of
documents to evidence the said fact, the Tribunal has
relied upon the notional income. However, it has taken the
income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- p.m. Having regard
to the fact that the accident is of the year 2013, it ought to
have been taken at Rs.7,000/-p.m. Since there are five
dependents, the Tribunal has correctly given 1/4th
deduction towards his personal and living expenses and
remaining 3/4th is taken for calculating the loss of
dependency. Since the age of the deceased was taken as
50 years, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Magma General Insurance Co. case, 25% of his
income is required to be added towards future prospects.
25% of Rs.7,000/- comes to Rs.1,750/-. Therefore, the
income is required to be taken at Rs.8,750/- instead of
C/w
MFA NO.200989/2015
Rs.6,000/- taken by the Tribunal. With these components
the loss of dependency is Rs.8,750/- x 12 x 13 x 3/4th
=Rs.10,23,750/- as against Rs.7,02,000/-.
27. Loss of consortium: Since the deceased has
left behind his wife and four children, as per the decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi and Magma
General Insurance Co. cases, each of them are entitled
for compensation in a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of
consortium. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for
compensation in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- under the head
loss of consortium as against Rs.20,000/- granted by the
Tribunal.
28. Loss to estate and funeral expenses: When
major compensation is granted under the head loss of
dependency, Rs.15,000/- each is required to be granted
under the conventional heads of loss to estate and funeral
expenses (which includes transportation charges).
Therefore, compensation under the head loss of estate is
enhanced to Rs.15,000/- as against Rs.10,000/- granted
C/w
MFA NO.200989/2015
by the Tribunal and reduced to Rs.15,000/- as against
Rs.25,000/- granted by the Tribunal.
29. Loss of love and affection: Since
compensation is granted under the head loss of
consortium, Rs.25,000/- separately granted by the
Tribunal under the head loss of love and affection is
disallowed.
30. Thus in all petitioners in MVC.No.596/2013 are
entitled for total compensation in a sum of Rs.12,53,750/-
as against Rs.7,87,000/- granted by the Tribunal as
detailed below:
Heads Amount granted Amount granted
by the Tribunal by this Court
In Rs. In Rs.
Loss of dependency 7,02,000/- 10,23,750/-
Loss of estate 10,000/- 15,000/-
Loss of consortium 25,000/- 2,00,000/-
Loss of love & 25,000/- disallowed
affection
Funeral expenses & 25,000/- 15,000/-
transportation
TOTAL 7,87,000/- 12,53,750/-
C/w
MFA NO.200989/2015
31. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(a) Appeals are allowed in part.
(b) The petitioners in MVC No.595/2013 are
entitled for compensation in a sum of Rs.8,53,700/-
as against Rs.5,71,000/- granted by the Tribunal
with interest at 6% p.m.
(c) The petitioners in MVC No.596/2013 are entitled
for compensation in a sum of Rs.12,53,750/- as
against Rs.7,87,000/- granted by the Tribunal with
interest at 6% p.m.
(d) Respondent No.2/insurance company is
directed to pay the compensation together with
accrued interest within a period of six weeks from
the date of this order. (minus the compensation
already paid/deposited)
(e) Registry is directed to send a copy of this order
to the Tribunal.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RR
