Karnataka High Court
Savita W/O Iranagouda Goudar @ Patil vs Mahadevappa Irappa Naganur on 29 November, 2023
Author: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13940-DB
MFA No. 102055 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102055 OF 2016 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SAVITA W/O IRANAGOUDA GOUDAR @ PATIL,
AGE:36 YEARS, OCC:HOUSE HOLD,
2. KUMAR. YALLANGOUDA S/O IRANAGOUDA GOUDAR @
PATIL, AGE:15 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT,
3. KUMAR. SHIVANAGOUDA S/O IRANAGOUDA GOUDAR @
PATIL, AGE: 13 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT,
(SINCE APPELLANTS NO.2 & 3
ARE MINORS, REP. BY THEIR MINOR GUARDIAN
APPELLANT NO.1 SMT. SAVITA
4. NEELAWWA W/O YALLANAGOUDA GOUDAR @ PATIL,
AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC:HOUSE HOLD,
JAGADISH
TR ALL ARE R/O: MALLUR VILLAGE,
TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
Digitally signed
by JAGADISH T R
Date: 2023.12.07
14:35:27 +0530
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. UMESH C AINAPUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MAHADEVAPPA IRAPPA NAGANUR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS and
OWNER OF VEHICLE, R/O: MALLUR VILLAGE,
TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
N.G.COMPLEX, 1ST FLOOR, OPP:
MINI VIDHAN SOUDHA, GULBARGA,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13940-DB
MFA No. 102055 of 2016
THROUGH ITS BELGAUM DIVISIONAL
OFFICE, CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI,
REGD. OFFICE 21, PAUTULLOS
ROAD, CHENNAI-02 (TAMIL NADU)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRASHANT S KADADEVAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
(BY SRI. S.S. KOLIWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.03.2014 PASSED IN MVC
NO.2560/2012 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MEMBER,
AMACT, BAILHONGAL, PARTLY ALLOWING CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
VIJAYKUMAR A PATIL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the
consent of learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for
final disposal.
2. This appeal is filed seeking enhancement of
compensation awarded under judgment and award dated
28.03.2014 passed in MVC No.2560/2012 on the file of
learned Senior Civil Judge and Member, Addl. MACT,
Bailhongal (for short, 'Tribunal').
3. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that
the appellants who are the wife, two children and mother of
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13940-DB
the deceased Iranagouda Patil, filed a claim petition under
Section 166 of the MV Act contending that on 6.12.2010, the
deceased Iranagouda Patil and others were in the field for
the purpose of collecting agricultural produce, at that time,
one Mahadevappa Naganoor was cleaning the said field with
his Tractor bearing registration No.KA-32/T-6215, while
doing so, the driver of the said Tractor drove the same in a
rash and negligent manner on the deceased. Due to the said
accident, the deceased has sustained fatal injuries and later
succumbed to the said injuries. It is averred that the
deceased was aged 36 years and earning Rs.15,000/- per
month by doing agricultural work and milk vending business.
It is further averred that due to negligence of the driver of
the offending tractor, the accident has occurred, hence,
respondent No.2 being the indemnifier of the tractor is liable
to pay compensation for the death of Iranagouda Patil.
4. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed
written statement denying the age, income and avocation of
the deceased and denied that the occurrence of the accident
was due to negligent driving of the driver of the offending
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13940-DB
Tractor in question. It was also contended that the claim of
compensation is highly exorbitant and without any basis. It
was further contended that the driver of the offending
Tractor was not having valid and effective driving license as
on the date of the accident and there is violation of terms
and conditions of policy, sought to dismiss the claim petition.
5. The Tribunal has recorded the evidence of the
parties. The claimant No.1-wife of the deceased Iranagouda
Patil examined herself as P.W.1 and one eye-witness
examined as P.W.2 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11. The
respondents did not adduce any evidence. The Tribunal on
appreciation of the entire material on record, awarded a total
compensation of Rs.11,43,200/- with 6% interest per annum
from the date of petition till the date of realization.
Aggrieved by the same, the claimants are before this Court
seeking enhancement of compensation.
6. Learned counsel Sri. Umesh C Ainapur, appearing
for the appellants-claimants submits that the Tribunal has
committed an error in assessing income of the deceased
notionally at Rs.6,000/- per month, inasmuch as the
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13940-DB
deceased was an agriculturist and doing milk vending
business, earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. It is
submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in
deducting 1/5th of the assessed income towards personal
expenses of the deceased, since there are four dependents,
it ought to have deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses.
He further submits that the award of compensation by the
Tribunal on other heads are also on lower side, he seeks to
allow the appeal by enhancing the compensation.
7. Per contra, Sri. S.S. Koliwad, learned counsel for
respondent No.2-Insurance Company supports the impugned
judgment and award. He further submits that since the
appellants have not produced any acceptable evidence to
substantiate the claim of the income of the deceased, the
assessment of notional income at Rs.6,000/- per month by
the Tribunal, which is just and proper. He further submits
that the award of compensation by the Tribunal on the other
heads is in consonance with the law and decisions of the
Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court, which need not be
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13940-DB
interfered with by this Court in this appeal. Hence, he seeks
to dismiss the appeal.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the
appellants as well as learned counsel for the respondent No.2
and perused the appeal papers along with original records.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the material available on record, the only
point that would fall for consideration in the present appeal
is, whether the award of compensation by the Tribunal is just
and proper?
10. Answer to the above point would be in the
negative for the following reasons:
(a) The parties to the proceedings do not dispute the
accident and the liability of the Insurance Company. It is also
not in dispute that the appellants are the legal heirs of the
deceased Iranagouda Patil, who was aged about 36 years at
the time of the accident.
(b) The Tribunal considering the material available on
record, assessed notional income of the deceased at
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13940-DB
Rs.6,000/- per month. This Court perused the averments
made in the claim petition, oral testimony of PW1 and Ex.P6
& P7-Sugarcane weight slips for having supplied the
sugarcane to the Factory for the year 2008 and Ex.P8-Land
revenue records, wherein it is depicted that the deceased
was owning the agricultural lands to an extent of 4 acres 6
guntas, which is an irrigated land. Taking note of the
sugarcane slips, nature of agricultural lands owned by the
deceased, its potentiality and average income derived from
the said land, it would be just and proper to assess notional
income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month as against
Rs.6,000/- per month assessed by the Tribunal.
(c) The Tribunal has committed an error in deducting
1/5th of the assessed income towards personal expenses of
the deceased. Keeping in mind the ratio laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Others
Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another1, since there
are four dependents, who are wife, children and mother of
the deceased, 1/4th of the assessed income has to be
2009 ACJ 1298
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13940-DB
deducted towards personal and living expenses of the
deceased.
(d) The Tribunal committed an error in awarding 30%
of the assessed income towards loss of future prospects,
which is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Pranay Sethi & Others2. Keeping in mind the law laid
down, since the deceased was below the age of 40 years, the
claimants would be entitled for addition of 40% of the
assessed income towards loss of future prospects. The
Tribunal applied multiplier of 15, which is correct. Thus, the
appellants/claimants are entitled for compensation under the
head loss of dependency as under:
Rs.8,000 + 40% x 12 X 15 - 1/4 = Rs.15,12,000/-
(e) The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- each
towards loss of estate and funeral expenses, which is on the
lower side. In light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Pranay Sethi's case supra, the claimants would be
2017 (16) SCC 680
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13940-DB
entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of
estate and funeral expenses.
(f) The Tribunal awarded a meager compensation of
Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium. Keeping in mind
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu
Ram & Others3, the claimants would be entitled for a sum
of Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium.
(g) The appellants are entitled for the following
modified compensation with interest at the rate of 6%:
1 Loss of dependency Rs.15,12,000/-
2 Loss of consortium (Rs.40,000/- each Rs.1,60,000/-
to appellants No.1 to 4)
3 Transportation of dead body and Rs.15,000/-
Funeral expenses
4 Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.17,02,000/-
Compensation awarded by the tribunal Rs.11,43,200/-
Enhanced compensation Rs.5,58,800/-
11. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to total
compensation of Rs.17,02,000/- as against Rs.11,43,200/-
awarded by the Tribunal.
2018 ACJ 2782
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13940-DB
12. Hence, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed in part.
ii. The impugned judgment & award passed by
Tribunal is modified to an extent that the
claimants would be entitled to total
compensation of Rs.17,02,000/- as
against Rs.11,43,200/- awarded by the
Tribunal.
iii. The enhanced compensation amount of
Rs.5,58,800/- shall carry interest at the
rate of 6% per annum from the date of
petition till date of payment.
iv. Respondent/Insurance Company 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.
v. On such deposit, appellant No.1-wife of the
deceased would be entitled to a sum of Rs.3
lakhs and Rs.1 lakh each shall be released
in favour of appellants No.2 & 3-children of
the deceased and remaining amount of
Rs.58,800/- with accrued interest shall be
released in favour of the appellant No.4-
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13940-DB
mother of the deceased on proper
identification.
vi. It is made clear that the claimants would
not be entitled to any interest on the
enhanced compensation amount for the
delayed period of 740 days in filing the
appeal.
vii. Registry to transmit the records to the
Tribunal forthwith.
viii. Draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
JTR
