Karnataka High Court
Laxmibai W/O Kariyappa Hatti vs Parasappa And Anr on 19 April, 2024
Author: H.T.Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T.Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3068-DB
MFA No. 200820 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 200407 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200820 OF 2022 (MV-D)
C/W
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200407 OF 2022 (MV-D)
M.F.A NO.200820 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
LAXMIBAI,
W/O. KARIYAPPA HATTI,
AGE: 50 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
Digitally signed R/O. BALABATTI, TQ: MUDDEBIHAL
by VARSHA N
RASALKAR DIST: VIJAYAPURA - 586 102.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI HARSHAVARDHAN R. MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. PARASAPPA,
S/O. HULAGAPPA SHIVAPUR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. NAGUR, TQ: MUDDEBIHAL
DIST: VIJAYAPURA - 586 102.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3068-DB
MFA No. 200820 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 200407 of 2022
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
H.NO. MIG, 323, BEHIND SBM,
K.H.B. COLONY, MUDDEBIHAL - 586 212.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SANJAY M. JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1 SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND
ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION TO RS.20,56,160/-
(EXCLUDING THE AMOUNT AWARDED BY THE TRIBUNAL)
ALONG WITH INTEREST BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD OF THE MEMBER M.A.C.T. NO.VIII AT, MUDDEBIHAL
DATED 01.08.2019, IN M.V.C.NO.1641 OF 2016, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
M. F.A NO. 200407 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. MUTTAPPA,
S/O. NINGAPPA CHALWADI,
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O. BALABATTI,TQ:MUDDEBIHAL,
DIST: VIJAYAPURA.
2. MALLAMMA,
D/O. NINGAPPA CHALWADI,
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: H.H.WORK,
R/O. BALABATTI, TQ:MUDDEBIHAL,
DIST: VIJAYAPURA.
3. SHIVAPPA,
S/O. NINGAPPA CHALWADI,
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O. BALABATTI, TQ:MUDDEBIHAL,
DIST: VIJAYAPURA.
4. YAMANAVVA,
W/O. VASANT KAMBLE,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: H.H. WORK,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3068-DB
MFA No. 200820 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 200407 of 2022
R/O. GANDHI NAGAR, HUNNUR,
TQ. JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT.
5. RENUKA,
W/O. SUNIL KADAPATTI,
AGE: 31 YEARS,OCC: H.H.WORK,
R/O. KADAPATTI, TQ. JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. HARSHAVARDHAN R. MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. PARASAPPA,
S/O. HULAGAPPA SHIVAPUR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. NAGUR, TQ. MUDDEBIHAL,
DIST: VIJAYAPURA - 586 101.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD,
H.NO. MIG, 323, BEHIND SBM,
KHB COLONY, MUDDEBIHAL - 586 212.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANJAY M. JOSHI, ADVOCATE OR R2;
V/O DATED 19.04.2024 NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND
ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION TO RS.20,91,160/-(EXCLUDING
THE AMOUNT AWARDED BY THE TRIBUNAL) ALONG WITH
INTEREST BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD OF THE
MEMBER MACT NO.VIII AT, MUDDEBIHAL DATED 01.08.2019,
IN MVC NO.1640 OF 2016, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THESE MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY
K.V.ARAVIND J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3068-DB
MFA No. 200820 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 200407 of 2022
JUDGMENT
Though these appeals are listed for admission, with
the consent of both the learned counsel, it is taken up for
disposal.
2. These appeals by the claimants arise out of
common judgment and award in MVC Nos.1641/2016 and
1640/2016 dated 01.08.2019 on the file of the Senior Civil
Judge & MACT-VIII, Muddebihal (for short 'the Tribunal').
3. MFA No.200820/2022 is against MVC
N0.1641/2016 and MFA No.200407/2022 is against MVC
No.1640/2016.
4. In MVC No.1640/2016, the claimants are
brothers and sisters of deceased Sangappa, filed claim
petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for
short 'the M.V. Act'), claiming compensation due to death
of Sangappa, who died in the accident that occurred on
01.08.2016 involving Tipper lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-36-
B-1330. It is stated that the deceased Sangappa was
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3068-DB
earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- p.m. by doing coolie work
and he was aged 21 years.
5. The claimant in MVC No.1641/2016, the mother
of deceased Shivappa, filed claim petition due to death of
Shivappa in the accident that occurred on 01.08.2016
involving Tipper lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-36-B-1330. It is
stated that deceased Shivappa, was earning a sum of
Rs.10,000/- p.m. from coolie work and aged 21 years.
6. Respondents in both the claim petitions were
common. Both the claim petition arises out of the common
accident. The Tribunal has recorded common evidence and
passed common judgment and award.
7. Respondent No.1 filed written statement
denying the age avocation and income of the deceased,
disputed the negligence of lorry driver, contended that
lorry driver possess a valid and effective driving licence.
The driver of the lorry is skilled. The accident occurred due
to negligence of the claimants itself. The offending vehicle
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3068-DB
is insured with respondent No.2, if compensation is to be
paid, prayed to direct the respondent No.2 into indemnify
the same.
8. Respondent No.2 - insurer filed statement of
objections denying the factum of accident. Though, denied
the alleged accident, admitted the policy to the offending
vehicle. Further, contended that the accident was due to
rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry.
Alternatively, contended that offending vehicle is falsely
implicated.
9. The Tribunal on the basis of pleadings, framed
the following issues:
ISSUES IN MVC No.1640/2016:
1) "Whether the petitioners prove that on
01/08/2016 at about 1-30 pm near
Uppaladinni Cross on the Nidagundi- Basavan
Bagewadi road, the accident has taken place
due to rash and negligent driving of Tipper
No.KA.36/B-1330 by its driver, which dashed
against the motorcycle driven by one
Sangappa Chalawadi, and due to which
Sangappa sustained grievous injuries and
died?
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3068-DB
2) Whether the petitioners prove the age,
occupation and monthly income of the
deceased as alleged in the petition?
3) Whether the respondent No.2 proves that, the
accident has occurred due to the negligent
riding of the motorcycle rider?
4) Whether the respondent No.2 proves that, the
petition is not maintainable for non- joinder of
necessary parties?
5) Whether the respondent No.2 proves that, the
conditions of the policy have been violated
and therefore the respondent No.2 is not
liable to pay any compensation.
6) Whether the respondent No.2 proves that, the
driver of the Tipper vehicle did not have valid
and effective driving license to drive particular
type of vehicle?
7) Whether the petitioners are entitled for the
compensation? If so, what is the quantum and
from whom?
8) What order or award?"
ISSUES IN MVC No.1641/2016:
1) "Whether the petitioner proves that on
01/08/2016 at about 1-30 pm near
Uppaladinni Cross on the Nidagundi- Basavan
Bagewadi road, the accident has taken place
due to rash and negligent driving of Tipper
No.KA.36/B-1330 by its driver, which dashed
against the motorcycle driven by one
Sangappa Chalawadi, wherein Shivappa was
pillion rider and due to which Shivappa
sustained grievous injuries and died?
2) Whether the petitioner proves the age,
occupation and monthly income of the
deceased as alleged in the petition?
3) Whether the respondent No.2 proves that, the
accident has occurred due to the negligent
riding of the motorcycle rider?
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3068-DB
4) Whether the respondent No.2 proves that, the
petition is not maintainable for non- joinder of
necessary parties?
5) Whether the respondent No.2 proves that, the
conditions of the policy have been violated
and therefore the respondent No.2 is not
liable to pay any compensation?
6) Whether the respondent No.2 proves that, the
driver of the Tipper vehicle did not have valid
and effective driving license to drive particular
type of vehicle?
7) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the
compensation? If so, what is the quantum and
from whom?
8) What order or award?"
10. Petitioners examined themselves as PW.1 and 2
and got marked Exs.P1 to P7. Respondent No.2 - Insurer
has examined one witness as RW.1 and got marked
Exs.R1 to R2.
11. In MVC No.1641/2016, the Tribunal considering
the income of the deceased at Rs.5,730/- p.m., age as 21
years, applied multiplier '18' and granting compensation
under conventional heads, awarded compensation of
Rs.6,43,840/- under various heads as follows:
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3068-DB
Sl. Compensation
Different Heads
No. Amount
1 Loss of dependency 6,18,840/-
2 Funeral and transport 15,000/-
expenses
3 Loss of estate 10,000/-
Total 6,43,840/-
12. In MVC No.1640/2016, the Tribunal considering
the income of the deceased at Rs.5,730/- p.m., age as 21
years, applied multiplier '18' and granting compensation
under conventional heads, awarded compensation of
Rs.6,58,840/- under various heads as follows:
Sl. Compensation
Different Heads
No. Amount
1 Loss of Dependency Rs.6,18,840/-
Funeral and transport Rs.15,000/-
expenses
3 Loss of estate Rs.25,000/-
Total Rs.6,58,840/-
13. We have heard Sri. Harshavardhan R. Malipatil,
learned counsel for the appellants / claimants, Sri. Sanjay
M. Joshi, learned counsel for respondent No.2 - Insurance
Company and notice to respondent No.1 - owner of the
vehicle is dispensed with.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3068-DB
14. Learned counsel for the claimants in both the
cases submits that the deceased were earning a sum of
Rs.10,000/- p.m., the income considered at Rs.5,730/- by
the Tribunal is on the lower side. Learned counsel further
submits that the Tribunal committed an error in not
awarding any compensation towards future prospects and
other conventional heads.
15. Learned counsel for the insurer submits that, no
proof of income has been placed by the claimants. The
income assessed by the Tribunal is justified. As no proof of
income is produced, the Tribunal is justified in not
awarding any compensation towards future prospects. The
compensation awarded under various heads is just and
proper. Thus, prays to dismiss the appeals.
16. We have considered the submissions of both
the counsels and perused the appeal papers.
17. The death of Sangappa and Shivappa, due to
accident involving Tipper lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-36-B-
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3068-DB
1330 is not in dispute in this appeal. The claimants have
contended that the deceased were earning a sum of
Rs.10,000/- p.m. However, no proof of income has been
produced by the claimants in both the cases. In the
absence of any proof of income to award compensation,
the income is to be notionally assessed. The Tribunal has
assessed the income at Rs.5,730/- p.m. As per the chart
prepared by the KSLA for the accident arising out of the
year 2016, the notional income is to be considered at
Rs.8,750/-. Hence, we asses the income of the deceased
at Rs.8,750/- p.m.
18. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case National Insurance Co. Ltd.. Vs. Pranay
Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the assessed
income is to be further added towards future prospects. In
both the cases, claimants were aged 21 years. For the age
group upto 40 years, 40% of the assessed income is to be
awarded towards future prospects. We hold that claimants
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3068-DB
are entitled to 40% of the assessed income towards future
prospects.
19. The claimants in MVC No.1640/2016, are
brothers and sisters of deceased Sangappa. As per the
judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma
General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram
@Chchuru Ram and others reported in 2018 ACJ 2782,
the siblings are not entitled for compensation under the
head consortium. Hence, the prayer to award consortium
is hereby rejected.
20. In MVC No.1641/2016, the claimant is the
mother of deceased Shivappa. As per the Magma (supra),
mother is entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards filial consortium.
21. In both the cases, the age and applicable
multiplier and deduction at 50% towards personal
expenses of the deceased is not in dispute. Claimants are
entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and
Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses.
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3068-DB
22. In respect of both the claim petitions, the loss
of dependency is calculated as under:
Rs.8,750/- + Rs.3,500 [40% added] = Rs.12,250/-.
Rs.12,250 - Rs.6,125/- [50% deducted] = Rs.6,125/-.
Rs.6,125/- x 12 x 18 = Rs.13,23,000/-.
23. In MVC No.1641/2016, the claimant is entitled
for the following compensation:
As awarded by As awarded
Compensation under the Tribunal by this Court
different Heads (Rs.) (Rs.)
Loss of dependency 6,18,840/- 13,23,000
Funeral and transport 15,000/- 15,000/-
expenses
Loss of estate 10,000/- 15,000/-
Filial consortium -- 40,000/-
Total 6,43,840/- 13,93,000/-
Enhancement 7,49,160/-
24. Thus, in MVC No. 1641/2016, the total
compensation awarded is Rs.13,93,000/- as against
Rs.6,43,840/- as awarded by the Tribunal.
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3068-DB
25. In MVC No.1640/2016, the claimants are
entitled to the following compensation:
Compensation under As awarded by As awarded
different Heads the Tribunal by this Court
(Rs.) (Rs.)
Loss of dependency 6,18,840/- 13,23,000
Funeral and transport 15,000/- 15,000/-
expenses
Loss of estate 25,000/- 15,000/-
Total 6,58,840/- 13,53,000/-
Enhancement 6,94,160/-
26. Thus, in MVC No. 1640/2016, the total
compensation awarded is Rs.13,53,000/- as against
Rs.6,58,840/- as awarded by the Tribunal.
27. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
a) Both the appeals are allowed in part.
b) The judgment and award in MVC
No.1641/2016 and 1640/2016 dated
01.08.2019 on the file of the Senior Civil
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3068-DB
Judge & MACT-VIII, Muddebihal are
modified.
c) The claimants in MVC No.1641/2016 are
entitled to a total compensation of
Rs.13,93,000/-.
d) The claimants in MVC No.1640/2016 are
entitled to a total compensation of
Rs.13,53,000/-.
e) The Insurance Company is directed to
deposit the compensation amount along
with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of
filing of the claim petition till the date of
realization, within six weeks from the date
of receipt of copy of this judgment.
f) In MVC No.1640/2016, the apportionment,
deposit and release of amount shall be
made in terms of the award of the
Tribunal.
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3068-DB
g) In MVC No.1641/2016, the deposit and
release of amount shall be made in terms
of the award of the Tribunal.
h) Draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
DDU
CT;BN
