Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Sri.Basappa S/O. Kalappa Iragar on 27 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4593
MFA No.104084/2019 C/W MFA
No.104085/2019, MFA No.101019/2020,
MFA No.101020/2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH R
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
MFA NO. 104084 OF 2019 (MV-D)
C/W
MFA NO.104085 OF 2019(MV-I)
MFA NO.101019 OF 2020 (MV-D)
MFA NO.101020 OF 2020 (MV-I)
IN MFA NO.104084/2019
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
RAMDEV GALLI, BELAGAVI,
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORISED SIGNATORY-590002.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. BASAPPA S/O. KALAPPA IRAGAR,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC : AGRICULTURE.
Digitally
signed by
ROHAN
2. SMT. KASTURI W/O. BASAPPA IRAGAR,
ROHAN HADIMANI
HADIMANI T AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK.
T Date:
2024.02.29
10:40:42
+0530
3. SRI. SUNIL BASAPPA IRAGAR,
AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
ALL ARE RESIDENT BELAVI,
TAL: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591309.
4. M/S. R.N.S. TRACKING
RNS EARTH MOVERS PVT. LTD,
NO.28, A/P KOLLIKOPPA,
HUBLI ROAD, BELAGAVI-590001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SUNANDA P. PATIL, ADV. FOR RESPONDENT 1 TO 3,
NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.4 SERVED)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4593
MFA No.104084/2019 C/W MFA
No.104085/2019, MFA No.101019/2020,
MFA No.101020/2020
THIS MISCELLENEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL THE RECORDS,
HEAR THE PARTIES, AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR BY
SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
06/05/2019 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND AMACT AT:
HUKKERI IN M.V.C NO.921 OF 2017 WITH COST IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN MFA NO.104085/2019
BETWEEN
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
RAMDEV GALLI, BELAGAVI.
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY-590001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SRI. RAVINDRA APPASAHEB KADALAGI,
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: MASON, AGRICULTURE
AND MILK VENDING BUSINESS,
NOW NILL R/O. BELAVI,
TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591309.
2. M/S. R.N.S. TRACKING
RNS EARTH MOVERS PVT. LTD,
NO.28, A/P: KOLLIKOPPA,
HUBLI ROAD, BELAGAVI-590001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SUNANDA P. PATIL, ADV. FOR C/R1)
(R2-SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL THE RECORDS,
HEAR THE PARTIES, AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR BY
SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
06/05/2019 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND AMACT AT
HUKKERI IN M.V.C NO.922 OF 2017 WITH COST IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4593
MFA No.104084/2019 C/W MFA
No.104085/2019, MFA No.101019/2020,
MFA No.101020/2020
IN MFA NO.101019/2020
BETWEEN
1. SHRI. BASAPPA S/O. KALLAPPA IRAGAR,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BELAVI-591236,
TALUK: HUKKERI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.
2. SMT. KASTURI W/O. BASAPPA IRAGAR,
AGE: 44 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. BELAVI-591236,
TALUK: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
3. SUNIL S/O. BASAPPA IRAGAR,
AGE: 23 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: STUDENT,
R/O. BELAVI-591236,
TALUK: HUKKERI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.
..APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. SUNANDA P. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. M/S. R.N.S TRACKING
RNS EARTH MOVERS PVT LTD,
NO.28, AT/POST: KOLLIKOPPA,
HUBBALLI ROAD, BELAGAVI-591118,
TALUK AND DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,
RAMDEV GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADV. FOR RESPONDENT NO.2
NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.1 SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173 (1) OF
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY
MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.05.2019 IN MVC
NO.921/2017 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
ADDITIONAL MACT, HUKKERI AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4593
MFA No.104084/2019 C/W MFA
No.104085/2019, MFA No.101019/2020,
MFA No.101020/2020
RS.9,11,600/- (EXCLUDING THE AWARDED AMOUNT) TO THE
APPELLANTS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN MFA NO.101020/2020
BETWEEN
SHRI. RAVINDRA S/O. APPASAHEB KADALAGI,
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: MASON, AGRICULTURE
AND MILK VENDING BUSINESS, NOW NIL,
R/O. BELAVI-591107,
TALUKA: HUKKERI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. SUNANDA P. PATIL, ADVOCATES)
AND
1. M/S. R.N.S TRACKING,
RNS EARTH MOVERS PVT. LTD,
NO.28, AT/POST: KOLIKOPPA,
HUBBALLI ROAD, BELAGAVI-581336,
TALUKA AND DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,
RAMDEV GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADV. FOR RESPONDENT NO.2,
NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.1 SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY
MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.05.2019 IN MVC
NO.922/2017 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
ADDITIONAL MACT, HUKKERI AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION
FROM RS.8,97,600/- TO RS.15,00,000/- TO THE APPELLANT IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4593
MFA No.104084/2019 C/W MFA
No.104085/2019, MFA No.101019/2020,
MFA No.101020/2020
COMMON JUDGMENT
These appeals are directed against common judgment
and award dated 6.5.2019 passed in MVC Nos.921 and 922 of
2017 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT,
Hukkeri (for short, 'Tribunal').
2. MFA No.104084/2019 is filed by the insurance
company challenging the liability as well as quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal in MVC No.921/2017,
whereas the claimants have filed MFA No.101019/2020 seeking
enhancement of compensation for the accidental death of
Sri.Suresh.
3. MFA No.104085/2019 is filed by the insurance
company challenging the liability as well as quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal in MVC No.922/2017,
whereas the injured/claimant has filed MFA No.101020/2020
seeking enhancement of compensation for the accidental
injuries sustained by him.
4. Brief facts leading to filing of these appeals are that
on 11.02.2017 at about 13.00 hours, Suresh Iragar (deceased
in MVC No.921/2017) was proceeding on motorcycle bearing
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4593
MFA No.104084/2019 C/W MFA
No.104085/2019, MFA No.101019/2020,
MFA No.101020/2020
registration No.KA-36/EJ-7712 from Raxi towards Hukkeri side,
along with his friend Ravindra, pillion rider (injured in MVC
No.922/2017). When they came near Kyaragudda on
Ghataprabha-Hukkeri road, one Mahindra CRDI vehicle bearing
registration No.KA-22/C-0053 came from Hukkeri side, driven
by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit the
motorcycle. Due to which, rider Suresh sustained fatal injuries
and pillion rider Ravindra sustained grievous injuries.
Immediately, they were shifted to Government Hospital,
Hukkeri for treatment. However, Suresh succumbed to the
injuries on the same day. The claimant Ravindra took
treatment in different hospitals and suffered disability. It is
averred that the deceased Suresh and the injured Ravindra
were working as Mason and were earning Rs.20,000/- per
month respectively. The legal heirs of the deceased Suresh
filed claim petition in MVC No.921/2017 and the injured
Ravindra filed claim petition in MVC No.922/2017 seeking
compensation.
5. The respondents entered appearance and filed
objections denying the averments made in the claim petitions.
It is averred that there was no negligence on the part of the
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4593
MFA No.104084/2019 C/W MFA
No.104085/2019, MFA No.101019/2020,
MFA No.101020/2020
driver of the offending Mahindra Jeep and it is the rider of the
motorcycle, who has caused the accident in question. It is also
averred that the claim of the claimants are exorbitant and
without any basis. Thus, sought for dismissal of the claim
petitions.
6. During trial, the claimants examined three
witnesses as PW1 to PW3 and marked the documents as Ex.P1
to P18. The respondents examined one witness as RW1 and
marked documents as Ex.R1 and R2.
7. The Tribunal on considering the entire material on
record awarded total compensation of Rs.10,88,400/- with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum in MVC No.921/2017 and
Rs.8,97,600/- with interest at 6% per annum in MVC
No.922/2017. Being aggrieved by the liability as well as
quantum of compensation, the insurance company as well as
the claimants have filed the above appeals.
8. Sri.Rajashekhar S Arani, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant/insurance company in support of his appeals
would vehemently contend that the Tribunal committed grave
error in appreciating the evidence available on record. The
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4593
MFA No.104084/2019 C/W MFA
No.104085/2019, MFA No.101019/2020,
MFA No.101020/2020
evidence on record indicates that the rider of the motorcycle
i.e., deceased Suresh came extreme right of the said road and
dashed to the offending Mahindra Jeep. In support of said
contention, learned counsel places reliance on the sketch of the
accident available on record. It is further submitted that rider
of the motorcycle i.e., deceased Suresh was not holding driving
license, as is evident from the evidence of PW1 and PW2. It is
also submitted that the appellant/insurance company had sent
notice to the owner of the vehicle, who had handed over the
said motorcycle to the deceased Suresh knowing fully well that
the rider Suresh did not have driving license. He further
submits that taking note of these facts, the investigating officer
filed charge sheet against the deceased Suresh as well as
owner of the motorcycle, which clearly establishes that the
deceased Suresh did not know driving, resulted in accident in
question.
9. Learned counsel Sri. Arani further argues that the
Tribunal committed an error in assessing income of the
deceased Suresh as well as injured Ravindra at Rs.7,000/- per
month. The evidence on record would indicate that the
deceased Suresh was a student as is evident from the inquest
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4593
MFA No.104084/2019 C/W MFA
No.104085/2019, MFA No.101019/2020,
MFA No.101020/2020
panchanama. He further submits that the motorcycle, which
was ridden by the deceased Suresh was less than 100cc
capacity and riding the said motorcycle without DL with pillion
rider is contrary to Section 140(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeals filed by the
insurance company by holding that the deceased was negligent
in riding the motorcycle and contributed the accident in
question.
10. Per contra, learned counsel Smt.Sunanda P. Patil
appearing for the appellants/claimants supporting the
impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal would submit
that the sketch available on record clearly indicates that the
width of the road is 18 feet and from the spot shown in the
sketch, towards southern side of the said spot, there is 8 feet
left over road, which further indicates that from the spot of the
accident, there is 10 feet road towards northern side, which
clearly indicates that the rider of the motorcycle was on the left
side and not on the right side. In support of her contention,
she places reliance on Ex.P3-Spot Panchanama, which also
indicates the said fact. It is further submitted that Ex.P1 is the
complaint which clearly indicates that the driver of offending
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4593
MFA No.104084/2019 C/W MFA
No.104085/2019, MFA No.101019/2020,
MFA No.101020/2020
Mahindra Jeep came in a rash and negligent manner and
dashed to the motorcycle.
11. Learned counsel Smt. Sunanda Patil would further
submit that after investigation, the police filed charge sheet
against the deceased Suresh under Sections 3 and 181 of the
MV Act and not under Sections 279, 338 and 304A of IPC. The
driver of the offending jeep was charge sheeted for the offence
punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304A of IPC. Hence,
question of holding that the rider of the motorcycle was
negligent would not arise. In support of her contention, she
places reliance on decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Saraswati Palariya & Others Vs. New India
Assurance Company Limited & Others1 and Sudhir Kumar
Rana Vs. Surinder Singh & Others2 and contends that mere
non-possession of driving license itself would not constitute
that the rider of the motorcycle was negligent. Non-possession
of driving license by the rider has no consequence, when the
Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the driver of the
offending Jeep was negligent.
1
2019 ACJ 42
2
2008 ACJ 1834
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4593
MFA No.104084/2019 C/W MFA
No.104085/2019, MFA No.101019/2020,
MFA No.101020/2020
12. Learned counsel Smt. Sunanda makes further
submission on the quantum of compensation and submits that
the Tribunal committed an error in assessing the income of the
deceased Suresh as well as injured Ravindra at Rs.7,000/- per
month, as the evidence available on record clearly indicates
that both were working as Masons and earning Rs.20,000/- per
month. Hence, she prays to consider the income of the
deceased as well as injured/claimant at Rs.20,000/- per month.
It is further submitted that the Tribunal also committed an
error in not awarding any compensation towards loss of
consortium in MVC No.921/2017. Insofar as compensation
awarded by the Tribunal in MVC No.922/2017 is concerned, She
submits that the Tribunal committed an error in not awarding
any compensation towards loss of amenities and award of
compensation on the head of pain and suffering is on the lower
side. It is also submitted that Tribunal committed an error in
awarding compensation for loss of income during laid up period
only for a period of two months. Thus, she seeks to allow the
appeals filed by the claimants for enhancement of
compensation appropriately.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4593
MFA No.104084/2019 C/W MFA
No.104085/2019, MFA No.101019/2020,
MFA No.101020/2020
13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the material available on record including the
Tribunal records, the following points would arise for
consideration in these appeals:
a) Whether the Tribunal is justified in holding
that the driver of Mahindra Jeep bearing
registration No.KA-22/C-0053 was negligent
and the insurance company is liable to pay
entire compensation?
b) Whether the claimants in both the appeals
would be entitled for enhanced compensation?
14. Answer to the above points would be in the
'affirmative' for the following reasons:
15. Parties to the proceedings do not dispute that on
11.02.2017 in a road traffic accident, Sri.Suresh sustained fatal
injuries and succumbed to the same in the hospital and the
pillion rider Ravindra sustained grievous injuries and had taken
treatment at different hospitals. It is also not in dispute that
the deceased Suresh was riding the motorcycle in question and
the injured Ravindra was a pillion rider.
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4593
MFA No.104084/2019 C/W MFA
No.104085/2019, MFA No.101019/2020,
MFA No.101020/2020
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE:
16. The contention of the appellant/insurance company
that the rider of the motorcycle took his vehicle on the extreme
right side of the road and was negligent in riding the vehicle,
which resulted in causing the accident in question. It is also
contended that the rider of the motorcycle was not in
possession of DL and he did not know driving, is the cause for
the accident. On bare perusal of the sketch available on
record, it clearly indicates that the offending Jeep was
proceeding from Hukkeri to Ghataprabha and the motorcycle
was proceeding from Ghataprabha to Hukkeri. The width of the
road is 18 feet. The accident spot shown in the sketch clearly
indicates that from the left side of the spot i.e., towards
southern side, there is 8 feet road and towards northern side,
left over road is shown as 10 feet, which is unambiguous and
clear that the accident has taken place towards southern
portion of the road, which clearly indicates that the rider of the
motorcycle was on the left side of the road. Ex.P3-Spot
Panchanama further makes it clear that towards northern side,
there was 10 feet left over road from the spot of the accident.
In other words, rider of the motorcycle was on the left side of
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4593
MFA No.104084/2019 C/W MFA
No.104085/2019, MFA No.101019/2020,
MFA No.101020/2020
the road when the accident took place. Hence, it can be fairly
held that the driver of the offending Jeep has come on wrong
side of the road and dashed the motorcycle.
17. A bare perusal of Ex.P1-complaint clearly indicates
that the accident in question has taken place due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of Mahindra Jeep and rider of the
motorcycle was on the left side of the road. Insofar as
contention with regard to non-possession of driving license by
the deceased is concerned, the evidence on record clearly
indicates that the Investigating Officer after investigation has
filed charge sheet against rider of motorcycle i.e., deceased
Suresh and driver of Mahindra Jeep as well as owner of the
motorcycle. On perusal of charge sheet papers, it is evident
that the charge sheet is filed against the deceased rider for the
offence punishable under Sections 3 and 181 of the MV Act,
however, charge sheet is filed against the driver of Mahindra
Jeep for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 338 and
304A of IPC, which further makes it clear that the driver of the
offending Jeep was negligent and caused the accident in
question. Further, non-possession of driving license that itself
is not a ground to come to a conclusion that the rider of the
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4593
MFA No.104084/2019 C/W MFA
No.104085/2019, MFA No.101019/2020,
MFA No.101020/2020
motorcycle was negligent and caused the accident in question.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in Sudhir Kumar Rana's case referred
supra has held as under:
"8. If a person drives a vehicle without a license,
he commits an offence. The same, by itself, in our
opinion, may not lead to a finding of negligence as
regards the accident. It has been held by the courts
below that it was the driver of the mini-truck which was
being driven rashly and negligently. It is one thing to say
that the appellant was not possessing any license but no
finding of fact has been arrived at that he was driving the
two-wheeler rashly and negligently. If he was not driving
rashly and negligently which contributed to the accident,
we fail to see as to how, only because he was not having
a license, he would be held to be guilty of contributory
negligence."
Similarly, in Saraswati Palariya's case referred supra,
the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:
"5. The finding of the High Court of contributory
negligence on the ground that the deceased was driving
the vehicle without a driving license is equally
unsustainable. Driving without a valid driving license may
expose the claimant(s) to other liabilities but no inference
of contributory negligence can be arrived at on that
basis."
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4593
MFA No.104084/2019 C/W MFA
No.104085/2019, MFA No.101019/2020,
MFA No.101020/2020
18. Keeping in mind the enunciation of law laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to supra, this Court is of the
considered view that non-possession of driving license
ipso-facto would not constitute negligence of rider of
motorcycle. The evidence on record clearly indicates that the
driver of the offending Jeep was negligent and caused the
accident. Hence, the finding recorded by the Tribunal with
regard to negligence that the accident took place due to rash
and negligent driving of the driver of Mahindra Jeep is just and
proper, which does not call for interference. Hence, there is no
merit in the contention of the appellant/Insurer with regard to
negligence as well as non-possession of DL by the deceased
rider of the motorcycle and the same is rejected. Similarly,
with regard to the contention that the motorcycle was less than
100cc capacity, the said contention is also required to be
rejected as the appellant/insurance company has neither
pleaded nor produced any iota of evidence to substantiate the
said contention.
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4593
MFA No.104084/2019 C/W MFA
No.104085/2019, MFA No.101019/2020,
MFA No.101020/2020
QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION
IN MFA NO.101019/2020 (MVC NO.921/2017)
19. The contention of the insurance company that the
deceased Suresh was a student, as is evident from inquest
report has no merit consideration. As the evidence of PW1 and
PW2 clearly indicates that the deceased Suresh as well as
injured Ravindra were working as mason under Sanjiv Chikkodi,
Class-I Contractor and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. Ex.P1-
complaint clearly indicates that the deceased Suresh was
working as Goundi. Hence, mere mentioning in the inquest
report that the deceased was a student has no merit
consideration and the appellant/Insurance Company has not
produced any contrary evidence on record to substantiate their
claim. The Tribunal assessed notional income of the deceased
Suresh as well as injured Ravindra at Rs.7,000/- per month
respectively. The appellants/claimants have failed to produce
cogent and acceptable evidence to assess the income of the
deceased Suresh as well as injured Ravindra. Hence, it would
be just and appropriate to assess the income of the deceased
Suresh as well as injured Ravindra notionally placing reliance
on income chart prepared by KSLSA. Accordingly, this Court
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4593
MFA No.104084/2019 C/W MFA
No.104085/2019, MFA No.101019/2020,
MFA No.101020/2020
would assess notional income of the deceased Suresh as well as
injured Ravindra at Rs.10,250/- per month as against
Rs.7,000/- per month assessed by the Tribunal. There is no
dispute with regard to age of the deceased as 23 years,
applicable multiplier of 18 and deduction of 50% of the
assessed income towards personal and living expenses of the
deceased, as he was a bachelor. The Tribunal is justified in
adding 40% of the assessed income towards loss of future
prospects, which is undisturbed. Thus, the claimants would be
entitled to modified compensation on the head of loss of
dependency as under:
Rs.10,250 + 40% x 12 x 18 x 50% = Rs.15,49,800/-
20. The Tribunal committed an error in not awarding
any compensation under the head of loss of consortium. In
terms of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma
General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram &
Others3, claimants No.1 and 2 would be entitled to
Rs.44,000/- each including 10% escalation under the head of
filial consortium. The Tribunal is justified in awarding a sum of
Rs.15,000/- each on the head of loss of estate and funeral
3
2018 ACJ 2782
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4593
MFA No.104084/2019 C/W MFA
No.104085/2019, MFA No.101019/2020,
MFA No.101020/2020
expenses. However, the said sums shall carry 10% escalation
for every three years. Thus, the claimants would be entitled
total compensation on the following heads:
Sl.No. Particulars Amount
1. Loss of dependency Rs.15,49,800/-
2. Loss of estate & Funeral expenses Rs. 36,000/-
3. Filial Consortium Rs. 96,000/-
Total Rs.16,81,800/-
21. Thus, the claimants in MVC No.921/2017 would be
entitled to total compensation of Rs.16,81,800/- as against
Rs.10,88,400/- awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced
compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum
from the date of petition till realization.
IN MFA NO.101020/2020 (MVC NO.922/2017)
22. As stated supra, the income of the injured Ravindra
is assessed at Rs.10,250/- per month. There is no dispute with
regard to age of the injured Ravindra as 23 years and
applicable multiplier of 18. The doctor who gave treatment to
the injured Ravindra has issued disability certificate at Ex.P9
stating that the injured Ravindra has suffered permanent
physical disability amounting to 50% to the whole body, which
in my considered view is just and proper, requires no
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4593
MFA No.104084/2019 C/W MFA
No.104085/2019, MFA No.101019/2020,
MFA No.101020/2020
interference. Thus, the claimant Ravindra would be entitled to
compensation on the head of loss of future earning due to
disability as under:
Rs.10,250 x 12 x 18 x 50% = Rs.11,07,000/-
23. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.45,000/- under
the head of pain and suffering, which is on the lower side.
Hence, it would be just and appropriate to enhance the same to
Rs.60,000/-, as the appellant has suffered major injuries.
The Tribunal committed an error in awarding a meager sum of
Rs.10,000/- on the head of loss of amenities. Hence, it is just
and proper to award another sum of Rs.20,000/- on the said
head. The appellant/claimant was inpatient for about 20 days
having suffered grievous injuries. Hence, I am of the view that
the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.30,750/- (Rs.10,250 x
3 months) under the head of loss of income during laid up
period as against Rs.14,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The
award of compensation on the other heads is just and
reasonable, which is not disturbed. Thus, the injured Ravindra
would be entitled to total compensation on the following heads:
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4593
MFA No.104084/2019 C/W MFA
No.104085/2019, MFA No.101019/2020,
MFA No.101020/2020
Sl. Particulars Amount
No.
1. Pain & Suffering Rs. 60,000/-
2. Medical expenses Rs. 58,580/-
3. Loss of future income due to disability Rs.11,07,000/-
4. Loss of income during laid-up period Rs. 30,750/-
5. Attendant, food, nourishment charges Rs. 10,000/-
6. Loss of amenities Rs. 30,000/-
7. Transportation & incidental expenses Rs. 4,000/-
Total Rs.13,00,330/-
24. Thus, the claimant in MVC No.922/2017 would be
entitled to total compensation of Rs.13,00,330/- as against
Rs.8,97,600/- awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced
compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum
from the date of petition till realization.
25. It is noticed that this Court while condoning the
delay in filing the appeals by the claimants, made an
observation that the appellants/claimants would not be entitled
for interest for the delayed period, in case if they succeed in
the appeals. Hence, the claimants in their respective appeals
would not be entitled for the interest on the enhanced
compensation for the delayed period.
26. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4593
MFA No.104084/2019 C/W MFA
No.104085/2019, MFA No.101019/2020,
MFA No.101020/2020
ORDER
a) MFA No.104084/2019 & MFA No.104085/2019
filed by the insurance company are dismissed
as devoid of merit.
b) MFA No.101019/2020 & MFA No.101020/2020
filed by the claimants are allowed in part.
c) The common impugned judgment and award of
the Tribunal is modified to an extent that the
claimants in MVC No.921/2017 would be entitled
to total compensation of Rs.16,81,800/- as
against Rs.10,88,400/- awarded by the Tribunal
and the injured/claimant in MVC No.922/2017
would be entitled to total compensation of
Rs.13,00,330/- as against Rs.8,97,600/-
awarded by the Tribunal.
d) The enhanced compensation amount in both
cases shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date of petitions till the date of
payment.
e) The appellant/Insurance Company shall deposit
the enhanced compensation amount in both the
appeals filed by the claimants with accrued
interest before the Tribunal within a period of six
weeks from today.
f) The apportionment, deposit and disbursement of
enhanced compensation shall be made as per
award of the Tribunal.
g) The amount in deposit made by the
appellant/insurance company in MFA
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4593
MFA No.104084/2019 C/W MFA
No.104085/2019, MFA No.101019/2020,
No.104084/2019 & MFA No.104085/2019 be
transmitted to the Tribunal along with TCR.
h) Needless to say that the claimants in MFA
No.101019/2020 & MFA No.101020/2020 shall
not be entitled to any interest on the enhanced
compensation for the delayed period. Registry to
take note of same while drawing award.
i) Draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
JTR
