Karnataka High Court
Ramjanbi W/O Allasab @ Allabaksh ... vs Ishwar S. Madar And Ors on 11 January, 2024
Author: B.M.Shyam Prasad
Bench: B.M.Shyam Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:498-DB
MFA No.200116 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200116 OF 2022 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. RAMJANBI
W/O ALLASAB @ ALLABAKSH WALIKAR
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
2. LALSAB
S/O ALLASAB @ ALLABAKSH WALIKAR
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
3. MAKABUL
S/O ALLASAB @ ALLABAKSH WALIKAR
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
Digitally signed
by SWETA 4. SABANA
KULKARNI
Location: HIGH D/O ALLASAB @ ALLABAKSH WALIKAR
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
ALL ARE R/O: ARJUNAGI,
TQ. & DIST: VIJAYAPURA - 586 113.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI KOUJALAGI CHANDRAKANT LAXMAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. ISHWAR S. MADAR
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF THE
AUTO RIKSHAW NO. KA-48/2404,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:498-DB
MFA No.200116 of 2022
R/O: BANDIGANI, TQ: JAMAKHANDI
DIST: BAGALKOT - 587 301.
2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
KATAGI BUILDING KACHERI ROAD
BAGALKOT,
SUMMONS TO BE SERVED THROUGH
THE BRANCH MANAGER,
THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
S.S. ROAD, VIJAYAPURA - 586 101.
3. SHANKAR
S/O NAGARAJ PATIL
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF THE
APE AUTO NO.KA-48-2404
R/O. AT POST: JAMAKHANDI
TQ: JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT - 587 301.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
V/O. DTD. 04.01.2023 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH;
V/O. DTD.31.03.2023 SERVICE OF NOTICE ON R3 IS HELD
SUFFICIENT)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS
AND TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:
06.10.2018 PASSED IN M.V.C NO.1590/2013 ON THE FILE OF
THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE AND MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
NO.IV VIJAYAPURA AT VIJAYAPURA AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL
BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT BY
RS.15,83,600/- ONLY AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANTS
BEFORE THIS COURT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY AND THE FIXING THE LIABILITY TO THE RESPONDENT
NO.3 MAY BE SET ASIDE AND FIXING THE LIABILITY TO THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 I.E., INSURANCE COMPANY AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
Dr.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:498-DB
MFA No.200116 of 2022
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri Koujalagi Chandrakant Laxman, the learned
counsel for the appellants and Sri Manvendra Reddy, the
learned counsel for respondent No.2. Issuance of notice to
respondent No.1 stood dispensed with. Notice to respondent
No.3 was held sufficient.
2. This is a claimants' appeal. Challenge in this
appeal is the order dated 06.10.2018 that is rendered by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vijayapur [hereinafter
referred to as 'the Tribunal' for brevity] in MVC
No.1590/2013.
3. The case of the appellants as borne by record is
that on 15.05.2013 at about 7.30 p.m. while the deceased
Allasab alias Allabax [hereinafter referred as 'the deceased'
for brevity] was proceeding in Ape Auto bearing Reg.No.KA-
48/2404, the driver of the said auto drove the same in a
rash and negligent manner and lost control over the vehicle,
due to which the vehicle turned turtle and the inmates of the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:498-DB
auto, including the deceased, fell down and sustained
injuries. The deceased succumbed to the injuries.
4. Making his submissions on this day, the learned
counsel for the appellants states that the appellants are
aggrieved only by the quantum that is awarded as
compensation by the Tribunal concerned. Learned counsel
states that the deceased was working as building
construction labourer and was earning Rs.8,000/- per
month and the same was established before the Tribunal.
However, the Tribunal took the income of the deceased as
Rs.6,000/- per month which is on lower side and computed
loss of dependency. Learned counsel in this regard seeks for
enhancement.
5. Though the appellants failed to establish in
certain terms the actual income of the deceased as on the
date of the accident, however, having considered the fact
that for the accident which occurs in the year 2013, the
Legal Services Authority notionally takes the income at
Rs.7,000/- per month, this Court consider to take the said
NC: 2024:KHC-K:498-DB
amount as income of the deceased as on the date of
accident. Admittedly, the deceased was aged 42 years by
the date of accident. Thus, when 25% of the future
prospects is added and 1/3rd of the income of the deceased
is deducted towards personal and living expenses which the
deceased would have incurred for himself had he been alive,
the dependants being four in number, the amount that
would be arrived under the head of loss of dependency,
would be thus:
Computation of Loss of Dependency
By the
Description Tribunal By this Court
Income `6,000.00 `7,000.00
Addition of such Income at
the rate 25% towards future `0.00 `1,750.00
prospects
Monthly Income with the
addition towards future `6,000.00 `8,750.00
prospects
Deduction of 1/3rd towards
`2,000.00 `2,916.00
personal expenses
Monthly income with
addition of future prospects
`4,000.00 `5,834.00
and deduction towards
personal expenses
Therefore, Annual Income `48,000.00 `70.008.00
Loss of Dependency `6,72,000.00 `9,80,112.00
NC: 2024:KHC-K:498-DB
6. Thus, the loss of dependency comes to
Rs.9,80,112/-. If the amount under the conventional heads
i.e., Rs.70,000/- is added, the total compensation which the
appellants are entitled to comes to Rs.10,50,112/-.
However, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.7,66,400/-
as compensation. Therefore, in the light of the afore
mentioned discussion, the enhanced amount which the
appellants would be entitled to will be Rs.2,83,712/-.
7. Another ground raised by the learned counsel for
the appellant is that the Tribunal went wrong in fastening
the liability against the owner of the offending vehicle alone.
The learned counsel states that only because the driver of
the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective
driving license to drive the offending vehicle by the date of
accident, liability was fastened against the owner of the
offending vehicle and exonerated the Insurance Company.
The learned counsel states that the said observation of the
Tribunal is against the principles established by the recent
decisions of the Hon'ble Apelx Court in that regard. Learned
counsel for the Insurance Company submits that in case the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:498-DB
Insurance Company is ordered to pay the amount, the
Insurance Company should be given liberty to recover the
said amount from the owner of the offending vehicle under
the policy of 'pay and recovery'. Said submission appears
justifiable. Hence, the enhanced amount along with the
amount awarded by the Tribunal shall be first satisfied by
the Insurance Company i.e., respondent No.2. The
respondent No.2 is given liberty to initiate necessary
proceedings for realization of the said amount from the
owner of the offending vehicle.
8. Hence, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award dated
06.10.2018 passed in MVC No.1590/2013 on
the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Vijayapur is modified enhancing compensation
by Rs.2,83,712/-.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:498-DB
(iii) The enhanced amount shall carry interest at
the rate of 6% per annum from the date of
petition till the date of realization.
(iv) The respondent No.2 - Insurer shall first
deposit the total compensation along with
interest within a period of eight weeks from the
date of receipt of certified copy of this
judgment.
(v) Respondent No.2 is given liberty to recover the
same from the owner in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SWK
Ct;Vk
