Karnataka High Court

Sri Shasti Charan Das vs The Manager on 1 April, 2024

Author: Jyoti Mulimani

Bench: Jyoti Mulimani

                                              -1-
                                                         NC: 2024:KHC:13144
                                                       MFA No. 5758 of 2016




                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                           DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2024

                                           BEFORE
                          THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
                  MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5758 OF 2016(MV-D)
                  BETWEEN:

                  1.    SRI. SHASTI CHARAN DAS
                        S/O LATE SRIPATHI DAS,
                        AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,

                  2.    SRI. CHINMAY DAS
                        W/O SHASTI CHARANA DAS,
                        AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,

                  3.    SMT. MAMANI DAS
                        W/O LATE TAPASKUMAR DAS,
                        AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,

                  4.    TANUJA DAS
                        S/O LATE TAPASKUMARDAS,
                        AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS,
                        SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS
Digitally signed by     NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER APPELLANT NO.3,
THEJASKUMAR N
Location: HIGH          ALL ARE RESIDING AT
COURT OF
KARNATAKA               PARA-KADAMTALA,
                        UTTARAPARA, KADAMATALA SUTI,
                        MURSHIDABAD.
                        WEST BENGAL-74227.
                                                              ...APPELLANTS
                  (BY SRI. K.SHANTHARAJ., ADVOCATE FOR
                      SRI. VASUDEVA MURTHY.B.K., ADVOCATE)

                  AND:

                  1.    THE MANAGER,
                        BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
                                -2-
                                             NC: 2024:KHC:13144
                                           MFA No. 5758 of 2016




     GOLDEN HEIGHTS, 4TH FLOOR,
     NO.1/2, 59TH 'C' CROSS,
     4TH 'M' BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR,
     BANGALORE-560 010.

2.   M/S. TRAVELS WORLD
     SRIRAM MANSION NO-9(5-6),
     GROUND FLOOR, 4TH MAIN ROAD,
     SUBRAMANY TEMPLE STREET,
     KUMARA PARK WEST,
     BANGALORE-20.
                                                 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.PRADEEP., ADVOCATE FOR
    SRI. S.MAHESHWARA., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
    NOTICE TO R2-DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED:27.11.2023)

     THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:20.11.2014
PASSED IN MVC NO.5802/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE III
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
MACT, BENGALURU.

     THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR
DICTATING JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
                     JUDGMENT

Sri.Shantharaj.K., learned counsel on behalf of

Sri.Vasudeva Murthy.B.K., for the appellants

Sri.S.Maheshwara., learned counsel for respondent No.1 have

appeared in person.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be

referred to as per their status and rankings before the Tribunal.

NC: 2024:KHC:13144

3. It is the case of the claimants that on the 29th day

of August 2013, at about 9:30 p.m., Sri.Tapas Kumar Das was

riding his bicycle on Graphite India Road. When he reached

near ESI Road, a driver of a Car bearing Registration No.KA-02-

AA-9768 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit his

bicycle. Due to the forced impact, he fell from the bicycle and

sustained grievous head injuries. Thereafter, the public shifted

him to Vaidehi Hospital, wherein first aid was given and

thereafter he was shifted to NIMHANS Hospital, Bengaluru and

he was treated as an inpatient. During the treatment he

succumbed to injuries. Contending that they are the

dependants of the deceased, the claimants filed claim petition

seeking compensation.

In response to the notice, the second respondent did not

appear before the Tribunal and hence, he was placed ex-parte.

The first respondent appeared through its counsel and filed

statement of objections and denied the petition averments.

Among other grounds, it prayed for dismissal of the petition.

Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed

issues, parties led evidence and marked the documents. The

NC: 2024:KHC:13144

Tribunal vide Judgment dated:20.11.2014 allowed the claim

petition in part. It is this Judgment that is called into question

in this appeal on several grounds as set-out in the

Memorandum of appeal.

4. Sri.K.Shantharaj., learned counsel for the

appellants submits that the Judgment of the Tribunal is

contrary to the material on record and law.

Next, he submits that the Tribunal has erred in awarding

meagre compensation, hence the same requires enhancement.

A further submission is made that the deceased was

drawing a sum of Rs.14,602/- (Rupees Fourteen Thousand Six

Hundred and Two only) per month. The Tribunal lost sight of

the same and has erroneously taken the salary of the deceased

as Rs.9,000/- (Rupees Nine Thousand only).

Lastly, he submits that viewed from any angle, the

meager compensation awarded by the Tribunal is untenable.

Counsel therefore, submits that the appeal may be allowed.

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company justified the

Judgment. Counsel submits that the deceased was doing

NC: 2024:KHC:13144

overtime duty. Hence, the amount he was receiving towards

overtime cannot be considered as a salary. Counsel contended

that the Tribunal extenso referred to the material on record and

rightly considered the salary of the deceased as Rs.9,000/-

(Rupees Nine Thousand only) per month. Counsel therefore,

submits that the appeal is devoid of merits and the same may

be dismissed.

Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective

parties and perused the appeal papers and also the records

with utmost care.

5. The following points would arise for consideration:

1. Whether the Tribunal is justified in considering

the income of the deceased as Rs.9,000/-

(Rupees Nine Thousand only) per month.

2. Whether the Claimant is entitled for enhanced

compensation?

6. The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require

reiteration. It is not in dispute that the accident occurred on the

29th day of August 2013 and Sri.Tapas Kumar Das succumbed

to injuries. The Insurance Company has not disputed the

NC: 2024:KHC:13144

accident and the liability. The issue revolves only around

enhancement of the compensation and the salary of the

deceased.

The claimants have furnished the salary slip of the

deceased. Ex.P9 is the salary slip of the deceased for the

month of June 2013. A perusal of the same would reveal that

the gross salary is Rs.8,927/- (Rupees Eight Thousand Nine

Hundred and Twenty Seven only) and the net pay is Rs.7,344/-

(Rupees Seven Thousand Four Hundred and Forty Four only).

He has not done overtime duty in the month of June 2013.

Ex.P10 is the salary slip of the deceased for the month of

July 2013. A perusal of the same reveals that he has done

overtime duty hence, a sum of Rs.5,333/- (Rupees Five

Thousand and Three Hundred and Thirty Three only) is credited

to his salary towards overtime charges. Therefore, his gross

salary is shown as Rs.14,602/- (Rupees Fourteen Thousand Six

Hundred and Two only) and Net pay is Rs.13,101/- (Rupees

Thirteen Thousand One Hundred and One only). Needless to

say that as and when a person discharges overtime duty,

amount will be credited into his account as a overtime charges.

NC: 2024:KHC:13144

The same does not become part of the salary. Furthermore, the

claimants have not examined the employer of the deceased.

The Tribunal extenso referred to the material on record and

rightly took the salary as Rs.9,000/- (Rupees Nine Thousand

only) per month. In my opinion, the same is just and proper.

Hence, awarding compensation of Rs.19,44,000/- (Rupees

Nineteen Lakh Forty Four Thousand only) towards loss of

dependency and estate is just and proper.

In the present case, the deceased left behind his father,

mother, wife and one child. Hence, they are entitled to

compensation under the head "Loss of consortium". In view of

law laid down by the Apex Court in PRANAY SETHI's case, the

interest should be considered to the loss of consortium at the

rate of 10% per annum for every three years.

40,000 X 10/100 X 2 = 8,000

40,000 + 8,000 = 48,000

Rs.48,000/- X 4 = 1,92,000/-

Therefore, the claimants are entitled for compensation of

Rs.1,92,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Ninety Two Thousand only)

towards Loss of Consortium.

NC: 2024:KHC:13144

Since, compensation is awarded towards Loss of

Consortium, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal

towards loss of love and affection is to be deducted.

This Court deems it appropriate to award Rs.33,000/-

(Rupees Thirty Three Thousand only) towards Loss of estate,

transportation of dead body, funeral & obsequies ceremony as

against Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only).

7. Accordingly, this Court re-determines the

compensation as under:-

1. Towards loss of 19,44,000 Rs.19,44,000/- dependency and estate

2. Towards loss of 1,92,000 Rs.1,92,000/- consortium

3. Towards loss of estate 33,000 Rs.33,000/-

   and    transportation    of
   dead body, funeral and
   obsequies       ceremony
   expenses.
                                                  Total    Rs.21,69,000/-
      (Less) Compensation awarded by the                   Rs.20,34,000/-
                                            Tribunal
         Enhanced compensation awarded by                      Rs.1,35,000/-
                                           this Court

                                                     NC: 2024:KHC:13144

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case

and the prevailing rate of interest during the relevant time, this

Court deems it appropriate to award interest at the rate of 6%

per annum on the enhanced compensation amount from the

date of claim petition till realization.

8. Hence, the following:

ORDER

1. The Miscellaneous First appeal is

allowed in part and the Judgment

dated:20.11.2014 passed by the III Addl. Senior

Civil Judge and MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH-18) in

M.V.C No.5802/2013 is modified to the extent

stated hereinabove.

2. The claimant is entitled for enhanced

compensation of Rs.1,35,000/- (Rupees One Lakh

Thirty Five Thousand only) with 6% interest per

annum from the date of the claim petition till the

date of realization.