Karnataka High Court
K. Venkatesh vs Abdul Razak on 6 June, 2023
Bench: S G Bysgpj, Vapj
-1-
MFA No. 102187 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. 102187/2020 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. K. VENKATESH S/O K. THIMMAPPA
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O: KARURU VILLAGE,
SIRUGUPPA TALUK,
NOW AT C/O. GURULINGAPPA
BANDIHATTI, BALLARI
2. SMT. K. SHARADAMMA W/O K. VENKATESH
AGE: 42 YEARS, R/O: KARURU VILLAGE,
SIRUGUPPA TALUK,
NOW AT C/O. GURULINGAPPA
BANDIHATTI, BALLARI
...PETITIONERS
Digitally signed (BY SRI. AMARE GOUDA, ADVOCATE)
by JAGADISH T R
Location:
DHARWAD AND:
Date: 2023.06.08
13:18:19 -0700
1. ABDUL RAZAK S/O MURKTUZA SAB
AGE: 36 YEARS,
OCC: DRIVER OF THE BUS BEARING REGN. NO.KA16/B
9198, R/O MARIAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE and POST,
HOSAPETE TALUKA, BALLARI DISTRICT
2. LINGA REDDY B. A. S/O LATE ANANTHA REDDY
PROPRIETOR SRE TRAVELS,
HOP ROAD, CHITRADURGA
OWNER OF BUS BEARING REGN. NO.KA-16/B.9198
-2-
MFA No. 102187 of 2020
3. THE BRANCH MANAGER
IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
LIMITED, OPPOSITE TO OLD KSRTC BUSTAND,
DOUBLE ROAD, BALLARI
4. MOHAMMED HUSSAIN
S/O BABU MIYA, AGE: 29 YEARS,
OCC: DRIVER OF THE BUS BEARING REGN.
NO.KA.36/F, 1319, R/O GOGEPETE 585309,
SHAHAPUR TALUKA, YADAGIR DISTRICT
5. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
NEKRTC, RAICHUR DIVISION,
RAICHUR
6. VEERANA GOUDA R. S/O MALLANA GOUDA R.,
OWNER OF THE MAXI CAB BEARING REGN.
NO.KA34/B.1943, R/O. KUVEMPUR NAGAR,
BALLARI
7. THE BRANCH MANAGER
M/S. CHOLAMANDALAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
UPSTAIRS OF 24 HOURS NEW BHARATHI,
MEDICAL STORES, DOUBLE ROAD, BALLARI
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.G.N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
(SRI. RAVINDRA R MANE, ADVOCATE FOR R7)
(R2, R4, R5 AND R6-NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.07.2019
PASSED IN MVC NO.1009/2016 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MEMBER, MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-XII, BALLAIR, 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:
-3-
MFA No. 102187 of 2020
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 the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for
short, 'Act') praying for enhancement of compensation, not
being satisfied with the compensation awarded under
judgment and award dated 31.07.2019 passed in MVC
No.1009/2016 on the file of learned II Addl. District and
Sessions Judge & Member, MACT-XII, Ballari (for short,
'Tribunal').
3. The claimants, who are the parents of the
deceased Miss Jayashree, filed a claim petition under
Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation for the
accidental death of Jayashree, that occurred on
30.04.2016 involving Maxicab vehicle bearing registration
No.KA-34/B-1943, SRE Bus bearing registration No.KA-
16/B-9198 and KSRTC Bus bearing registration No.KA-
MFA No. 102187 of 2020
36/F-1319. It is stated that the deceased was aged 20
years as on the date of accident and was studying in
B.Com.
4. On issuance of notice, respondents No.3, 4, 5
and 7 appeared through their respective counsels and filed
their separate statement of objections denying the entire
claim petition averments. Respondent No.3-IFFCO Tokyo
General Insurance Company contended that respondent
No.1-driver of SRE bus was having valid and effective
driving license and the accident occurred due to negligent
driving of driver of Maxicab. Respondent No.4-driver of
KSRTC bus contended that accident in question took place
due to rash and negligent driving of driver of SRE bus
bearing registration No.KA-16/B.9198. It was further
contended that police filed charge sheet against driver of
SRE bus. Respondent No.5-NEKRTC specifically contended
that the accident occurred due to negligent act of both
vehicles i.e. driver of Maxicab and driver of SRE bus. It
was further contended that driver of respondent No.5 was
driving the bus slowly and cautiously by following traffic
MFA No. 102187 of 2020
rules and regulations. It was also contended that
respondent No.5 is made as formal party to the
proceedings. Respondent No.7-Cholamandalam General
Insurance Company contended that driver of Maxicab was
holding valid and effective driving license and the accident
in question took place due to fault of driver of SRE bus.
Thus, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
5. Before the Tribunal, claimant No.1-father of the
deceased examined as PW1 and got marked the
documents as Exs.P1 to P15. Respondents examined three
witnesses as RW1 to RW3 and got marked documents as
Ex.R1 to R13. The Tribunal on appreciation of the entire
material evidence on record awarded total compensation
of Rs.13,90,800/- with interest at 7% per annum on the
following heads:
Loss of Dependency Rs.13,60,800/-
Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/-
Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/-
Total Rs.13,90,800/-
MFA No. 102187 of 2020
6. While awarding the above compensation, the
Tribunal assessed notional income of the deceased at
Rs.9,000/- per month, added 40% of the assessed income
towards future prospects, deducted 50% towards personal
and living expenses of the deceased and applied multiplier
of 18 taking the age of the deceased as 21 years. The
claimants not being satisfied with the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal are before this
Court praying for enhancement of compensation.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the
appellants/claimants as well as learned counsels for the
respondents/Insurance Companies and perused the appeal
papers.
8. Sri. Amaregouda, learned counsel for the
appellants/claimants would submit that the income of the
deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.9,000/- per
month is on the lower side and it ought to have assessed
the same on the higher side, since the deceased was
B.Com student and would have earned more than
MFA No. 102187 of 2020
Rs.25,000/- per month. It is his submission that the
claimants being parents of the deceased would be entitled
to Rs.40,000/- each towards filial consortium as held by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General
Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Nanu Ram and Others1.
Thus, he prays for allowing the appeal filed by the
claimants.
9. Sri.G.N.Raichur, learned counsel appearing for
Respondent No.3-IFFCO Tokyo General Insurance
Company in support of the impugned judgment and award
would contend that in the absence of corroborative
material on record to establish the income of the
deceased, the Tribunal assessed monthly income of the
deceased at Rs.9,000/- which is just and proper. Learned
counsel further submits that compensation awarded by the
Tribunal on all heads is just and proper and same does not
call for any interference. Thus, he prays for dismissal of
the appeal.
2018 ACJ 2782
MFA No. 102187 of 2020
10. Sri.Ravindra R Mane, learned counsel for
respondent No.7-Cholamandalam General Insurance
Company argues in the same line as that of learned
counsel for respondent No.3. He further submits that the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper,
which requires no interference at the hands of this Court.
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the appeal papers, the only point that
would fall for consideration in this appeal is, whether the
claimants would be entitled for enhanced compensation?
12. Our answer to the above point is in the
affirmative for the following reasons.
13. There is no dispute with regard to the accident
occurred on 30.04.2016 involving Maxicab vehicle bearing
registration No.KA-34/B-1943, SRE Bus bearing
registration No.KA-16/B-9198 and KSRTC Bus bearing
registration No.KA-36/F-1319 resulting in death of Miss
Jayashree in this appeal. The claimants are before this
MFA No. 102187 of 2020
Court praying for enhancement of compensation. It is the
contention of the appellants-claimants that the income of
deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.9,000/- per
month is on the lower side and it ought to have assessed
the same on the higher side. PW1-father of the deceased
in his evidence deposed that the deceased was studying
B.Com and on the previous day of accident, she attended
the interview for job at Bengaluru. He further deposed that
the deceased was brilliant and was having outstanding
performance in her academics and she would have
definitely completed her C.A. course and earned more
than Rs.25,000/- per month.
14. A perusal of the appeal papers would go to
show that no acceptable or cogent document is placed on
record by the claimants to prove the income of the
deceased. However, 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 2016, would normally assess the notional income at
- 10 -
MFA No. 102187 of 2020
Rs.8,750/- per month, taking note of the chart prepared
by KSLSA based on various factors including the minimum
wage fixed. However, the Tribunal taking note of the fact
that the deceased was brilliant girl in her academics,
assessed monthly income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/-,
which according to us is proper and correct and requires
no interference.
15. Further, the Tribunal is justified in adding 40%
of the assessed income towards future prospects, which is
just and proper and same is not disturbed. The Tribunal
had taken the age of the deceased as 21 years, which is
not in dispute and also deduction of 50% of the income
towards personal and living expenses of the deceased as
she was a bachelor. Appropriate multiplier applicable to
the age of the deceased is 18. Thus, we are of the
considered view that the Tribunal is justified in awarding a
compensation of Rs.13,60,800/- on the head of loss of
dependency, which is just and reasonable and needs no
interference.
- 11 -
MFA No. 102187 of 2020
16. Further, the Tribunal committed an error in not
awarding any compensation on the head of loss of
consortium. It is well settled law that the claimants being
parents of the deceased would be entitled to Rs.40,000/-
each towards filial consortium as held by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co.
Ltd.(supra). Further, the Tribunal has rightly awarded a
sum of Rs.30,000/- on the conventional heads i.e. loss of
estate and funeral expenses, following the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others2. Thus,
the claimants would be entitled for enhanced
compensation of Rs.80,000/- in addition to compensation
already awarded by the Tribunal.
17. Hence, we pass the following:
ORDER
a) The above appeal is allowed in part.
b) The impugned judgment and award of
the Tribunal is modified to the extent
(2017) 16 SCC 680
- 12 -
MFA No. 102187 of 2020
that the claimants are entitled to
enhanced compensation of Rs.80,000/-
in addition to total compensation of
Rs.13,90,800/- 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) Respondents No.3 and 7/Insurance
Companies shall deposit the enhanced
compensation amount along with interest
before the Tribunal within a period of six
weeks from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this judgment.
e) On such deposit, the same shall be
released in favour of the claimants in
equal proportion on proper identification.
f) Draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
JTR
