Karnataka High Court
Ramchandra And Anr vs Bhaskar And Anr on 5 February, 2024
Bench: B.M.Shyam Prasad, Rajendra Badamikar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1257-DB
MFA No.201465 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201465 OF 2023 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. RAMCHANDRA
S/O KONDIBHA PUJARI
AGE: 47 YEARS
OCC: COOLIE
2. SUREKHA
W/O RAMCHANDRA PUJARI
AGE: 44 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF
Digitally signed GANESH NAGARA
by SWETA
KULKARNI VIJAYAPURA - 586 101.
Location: ...APPELLANTS
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA (BY SRI SANGANAGOUDA V. BIRADAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. BHASKAR
S/O RAMCHANDRA PATIL
AGE: 42 YEARS
OCC: BUSINESS
RESIDENT OF RAHATEWADI
TALUK: MANGALWEDA
DISTRICT: SOLAPUR - 413 001
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1257-DB
MFA No.201465 of 2023
2. THE MANAGER LEGAL/CLAIMS
SBI GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED
3/1, RUKMINI TOWERS
PLOT FORM ROAD
SWATI HOTEL
SHESHADRIPURAM
BENGALURU - 560 020
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 26.05.2023)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND
ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AS CLAIMED IN THE CLAIM
PETITION BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
22.06.2022 PASSED BY THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, M.A.C.T.-VI AT VIJAYAPURA, IN
M.V.C.NO.600/2020, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL DISPOSAL THIS
DAY, B.M.SHYAM PRASAD J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appellants are the claimants in MVC No.600/2020
on the file of the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge & MACT-VI,
Vijayapura [for short, 'the Tribunal'], and the Tribunal, by
the impugned judgment and award dated 22.06.2022, has
partly allowed this claim petition granting a sum of
Rs.4,70,000/- as compensation to the appellants along with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1257-DB
petition till the date of deposit directing the second
respondent - Insurer of the Tractor bearing Reg.No.MH-
13/AJ-7198 to pay the compensation The compensation of
Rs.4,70,000/- is computed thus:
Loss of dependency Rs.3,75,000/-
Loss of consortium Rs.80,000/-
Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.4,70,000/-
2. The appellants are the parents of Master Sanket
Pujari [the deceased], who has died as a result of the
injuries suffered in a road traffic accident on 03.03.2017 at
about 10.00 a.m. The Tribunal, taking the age of the Master
Sanket Pujari as 15 years and opining that there is no
evidence to show that he was an earning member, has taken
the notional income at Rs.25,000/- per annum and applying
the multiplier of 15, has granted a sum of Rs.3,75,000/-
towards loss of dependency. Further, the Tribunal granted a
sum of Rs.40,000/- to each of the appellants towards loss of
consortium and sum of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral
expenses. The appellants have sought for enhancement in
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1257-DB
the compensation towards loss of dependency, and this is
the only question for consideration in this appeal.
3. Sri Sanganagouda V. Biradar, the learned
counsel for the appellants, contends that the Tribunal, as
held by Division Bench of this Court in MFA
No.102268/2019 which is disposed of on 13.11.2020,
should have taken the income of Master Sanket Pujari not
on the basis of the second schedule but based evidence on
record. The learned counsel argues that in the present case,
the appellants have stated in their evidence that Master
Sanket Pujari was a bright student studying in 10th
standard and when this evidence is considered, the
appropriate notional income must be taken in a sum of
Rs.10,250/- per month as is taken in the cases of accident
in the year 2017 according to the schedule of award for
settlement in Lok-Adalat.
4. Sri Subhash Mallapur, the learned counsel for
the Insurer, submits that though the appellants contended
that Master Sanket Pujari was a bright student studying in
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1257-DB
10th standard, no evidence is brought on record and in the
case of a minor when there is no evidence, it is appropriate,
for the purposes of grant of just and reasonable
compensation, to take the annual income as per second
schedule. Sri Subhash Mallapur also submits that this
Court may have to consider the indisputable fact that
Master Sanket Pujari was riding motorcycle though being
below the age of 17 years.
5. The question of just and reasonable
compensation towards loss of dependency is examined in
the light of these rival submissions, and on perusal of the
records, the first appellant, who is the father of Master
Sanket Pujari and who has described himself as Coolie, has
examined himself as P.W.1 and all he says in his evidence
that, Master Sanket Pujari, who was 16 years was a good
student having a bright future. There is no evidence other
than this particular assertion.
6. The assessment of the age as recorded by the
doctor while drawing post-mortem report and in the first
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1257-DB
information filed with the jurisdictional police immediately
after the accident, Master Sanket Pujari is shown as being
born in the year 2002. If the parents eke out their livelihood
as Coolies and they are not educated, as it emerges from the
record, whether Master Sanket Pujari was really aged below
16 as found by the Tribunal would be a very tentative
question. This Court is of the considered view that it is not
possible in the light of the evidence on record to hold that
Master Sanket Pujari was just a 15 year old boy without
doing any work. Generally, in the families where the
persons work as unskilled labour, every member is an
earning member.
7. Further, those who are studying in 10th standard
will be above 15 years, and it is seen from the contents of
the FIR that the first appellant had bought a motorcycle for
his own use and the deceased had taken the motorcycle to
attend a function in the school. The boy was capable of
riding a motorcycle, and of course, without a driving license.
This aspect also assumes significance because, as argued by
Sri Subhash Mallapur, there can be ready inference of
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1257-DB
contributory negligence. The accident was when Master
Sanket Pujari was riding his motorcycle on a main road and
there is a head on collision with an on-coming Tractor.
8. Each decision must be decided on the facts and
circumstances of that particular case, and this Court, on a
holistic reading of circumstances is of the considered view
that that notional income in a sum of Rs.10,250/- per
month as per the schedule evolved for settlement in Lok-
Adalat and there must be a finding on contributory
negligence against Master Sanket Pujari with appropriate
apportionment. Further, in the peculiarities of this case,
this Court is of the considered opinion that there must be
apportionment of 50% of negligence. If the loss of
dependency is computed taking the income at Rs.10,250/-
applying multiplier of 18 [as per the decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation and another1] and deducting 50% towards
personal expenses and further 50% towards contributory
negligence, the appellants will be entitled to a sum of
1( 2009) 6 SCC 121
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1257-DB
Rs.5,53,500/- towards loss of dependency, as detailed
below:
The Computation of Loss of Dependency:
Description Amount
Annual Income
Rs.1,23,000/-
[Rs.10,250/- x 12]
Income after applying
Rs.22,14,000/-
multiplier of 18
Deduction of 50% towards
Rs.11,07,000/-
personal expenses
Deduction of 50% towards
Rs.5,53,500/-
contributory negligence
After the afore deductions,
the loss of dependency Rs.5,53,500/-
comes to
The computation of enhancement
By Tribunal By this Court
Description
Loss of dependency Rs.3,75,000/- Rs.5,53,500/-
Loss of consortium Rs.80,000/- Rs.80,000/-
Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.4,70,000/- Rs.6,48,500/-
Enhancement Rs.1,78,500/-
In the light of the above, the following:
ORDER
[i] The appeal is allowed in part modifying the
impugned judgment and award and
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1257-DB
granting an enhanced compensation of
Rs.1,78,500/-.
[ii] The second respondent - Insurer shall
deposit the enhanced compensation along
with interest at the rate of 6% per annum
within a period of eight [8] weeks from the
date of receipt of a certified copy of this
judgment.
[iii] The apportionment and disbursement
shall be subject to the orders of the
Tribunal in that regard.
[iv] The Registry is directed to remit the trial
Court records expeditiously.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
BL
Ct;Vk
