Karnataka High Court
Smt.Manjawwa W/O Hanumantappa ... vs Basavanneppa S/O ... on 6 June, 2023
Bench: S G Pandit, Vijaykumar A.Patil
-1-
MFA No. 101817 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101817 OF 2020 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. MANJAWWA W/O. HANUMANTAPPA VALMIKI,
@ TALAWAR, AGE: 51 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK.
2. HONNAWWA @ HONNAMMA,
D/O. HANUMANTAPPA TALAWAR,
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK,
3. SUDHA D/O. HANUMANTAPPA TALAWAR,
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK.
4. SANMUKHA S/O. HANUMANTAPPA TALAWAR,
AGE: 15 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT.
SINCE MINOR REP. BY M/G MOTHER APLNT NO.1
Digitally signed by ALL ARE R/O: KUDARIHAL, TQ: RANEBENNUR,
KM
SOMASHEKAR
Location:
DIST: HAVERI-581115.
DHARWAD
Date: 2023.06.09 ...APPELLANTS
16:13:56 -0700
(BY SRI. G.S. HULMANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. BASAVANNEPPA S/O. DODDAHANUMANTAPPA TALWAR,
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: MUSTUR, POST: MAKANUR,
TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581123.
2. THE GENERAL MANAGER,
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
E-8, RIICO, INDUSTRIAL AREA,
SITAPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTAN-302022.
...RESPONDENTS
-2-
MFA No. 101817 of 2020
(BY SRI. NAGARAJ C. KOLLORI, ADV FOR R2)
(NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA FILED IS U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.02.2019
PASSED IN MVC NO.200/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE III
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIM TRIBUNAL, RANEBENNUR, 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 appellants/claimants are before this Court
under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short,
'Act') praying for enhancement of compensation,
dissatisfied with compensation awarded under judgment
and award dated 28.02.2019 passed in MVC No.200/2018
on the file of learned III Addl. Senior Civil Judge &
Member, Addl. MACT, Ranebennur(for short, 'Tribunal').
3. The claimants, who are wife and children of
deceased Hanumantappa Talwar, filed a claim petition under
MFA No. 101817 of 2020
Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation for the
accidental death of Hanumantappa Talwar that took place on
03.12.2017 involving Tata Ace vehicle bearing registration
No.KA-27/B-4279. It is stated that the deceased was aged
60 years and was doing agriculture and thereby earning
Rs.10,000 to Rs.15,000/- per month.
4. On issuance of notice, respondents appeared
through their counsels and filed separate statement of
objections denying the claim petition averments. Respondent
No.1 denied that the accident occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of driver of the offending vehicle. He
further contended that driver of the offending vehicle was
having valid and effective driving license as on the date of
accident. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company admits that
the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.2. It
was contended that driver of the offending vehicle was not
having effective and valid driving license. Thus, prayed for
dismissal of the claim petition.
5. Before the Tribunal, claimant No.1-wife examined
herself as PW1 and examined another witness as PW2 apart
MFA No. 101817 of 2020
from marking the documents as Exs.P1 to P36. The
respondents examined two witnesses as RW1 and RW2 and
got marked documents as Ex.R1 to R4. The Tribunal on
appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record
awarded a total compensation of Rs.7,88,000/- with interest
at 7% per annum from the date of petition till realization on
the following heads:
Loss of dependency Rs.6,48,000/-
Loss of love and affection Rs. 60,000/-
Loss of consortium Rs. 40,000/-
Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-
Funeral expenses Rs. 25,000/-
-------------------
Total Rs.7,88,000/-
-------------------
6. While awarding the above compensation, the
Tribunal assessed notional income of the deceased at
Rs.8,000/- per month, deducted 1/4th towards personal
and living expenses of the deceased and applied multiplier
of 9 taking the age of the deceased as 60 years. The
claimants not being satisfied with the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal are before this
Court praying for enhancement of compensation.
MFA No. 101817 of 2020
7. Heard the learned counsel Sri. G.S. Hulmani,
appearing for the claimants as well as learned counsel
Sri.Nagaraj C Kolloori for the insurance company and
perused the appeal papers along with original records.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants
would vehemently contend that the Tribunal assessed
monthly income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- which is on
the lower side, inasmuch as the deceased was an
agriculturist and earning Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per
month. He further submits that the Tribunal committed an
error in not awarding any compensation towards future
prospects. It is his submission that as held by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & others1 that wherever the
deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the
claimants would be entitled to addition of 10% of the
assessed income towards future prospects. Further, learned
counsel would submit that since there are four dependents,
claimants would be entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards
2017 ACJ 2700
MFA No. 101817 of 2020
spousal consortium & parental consortium as held by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram & Others2. Thus, he
prays for allowing the appeal.
9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.2/Insurance Company supporting the
impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal submits that
in the absence of any cogent material on record, the Tribunal
assessed notional income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per
month, which is just and proper and requires no
interference. He further submits that compensation awarded
by the Tribunal on all heads are just and reasonable and
needs no interference at the hands of this Court. Thus,
prays for dismissal of the appeal.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for both the
parties and on perusal of the appeal papers along with
original records, the only point that would arise for
consideration in this appeal is, whether the claimants would
2018 ACJ 2782
MFA No. 101817 of 2020
be entitled to the enhanced compensation in the facts and
circumstances of the case?
Our answer to the above point would be in the
affirmative for the following reasons:
11. The occurrence of the accident on 03.12.2017
involving Tata Ace vehicle bearing registration No.KA-27/B-
4279 resultant death of deceased Hanumantappa Talwar is
not in dispute. The claimants are before this Court praying
for enhancement of compensation. It is the contention of the
appellants/claimants that notional income of the deceased
assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.8,000/- per month is on the
lower side and it ought to have assessed the same on the
higher side. But, no acceptable or cogent evidence is
placed on record to prove the income of the deceased. In
the absence of any material on record to establish the
avocation and earning, this Court and Lok Adalath while
settling the accidental claims of the year 2017, would
normally assess the notional income at Rs.10,250/- per
month, taking note of the chart prepared by KSLSA based
on various factors including the minimum wage fixed.
MFA No. 101817 of 2020
Therefore, in the instant case also, in the absence of any
corroborative document to establish the income of the
deceased, we are of the opinion that it would be just and
appropriate to determine the income of the deceased at
Rs.10,250/- p.m. taking note of the income chart prepared
by KSLSA and also the minimum wage fixed.
12. Further, the Tribunal erred in not awarding any
compensation towards future prospects. As held by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the
claimants would be entitled for addition of 10% of the
assessed income towards future prospects. The Tribunal had
taken the age of the deceased as 60 years, adopted
multiplier of 9 and deducted 1/4th towards personal and
living expenses of the deceased taking number of
dependents as four, which according to us are just and
proper. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to
compensation on the head of loss of dependency at
Rs.9,13,275/- (Rs.10,250 (income) + 10% (future
prospects) X 12 (months) x 9 - 1/4th (deduction).
MFA No. 101817 of 2020
13. Further, the claimants being wife and children of
the deceased would be entitled to Rs.40,000/- each
towards spousal and parental consortium as held by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance
Company Limited (supra). Further, the claimants would be
entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and
Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and transportation of
dead body as against Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
Thus, the claimants would be entitled for modified
compensation on the following heads:
Sl.No. Particulars Amount
1. Loss of dependency Rs.9,13,275/-
2. Loss of estate & Funeral Rs. 30,000/-
expenses
3. Spousal & Parental Consortium Rs.1,60,000/-
(Rs.40,000/- each to claimants
1 to 4)
Total Rs.11,03,275/-
14. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to total
compensation of Rs.11,03,275/- as against Rs.7,88,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal.
15. Hence, we pass the following:
ORDER
a) Appeal stands allowed in part.
- 10 -
MFA No. 101817 of 2020
b) The impugned judgment and award of the
Tribunal is modified to the extent that the
claimants are entitled to total
compensation of Rs.11,03,275/- as
against Rs.7,88,000/- 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-Insurer shall deposit the
enhanced compensation amount with
accrued interest before the Tribunal within
a period of six weeks from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this judgment.
e) The apportionment, deposit and
disbursement shall be made as per the
award of the Tribunal.
f) Draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
JTR
