Karnataka High Court
Savakka W/O. Vitthal Talawar vs Gangappa Dyamappa Bommannavar on 5 January, 2024
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:312
MFA No. 101525 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101525 OF 2014 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SAVAKKA W/O. VITTHAL TALAWAR
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORKS,
R/O: SOOLAKATTI ONI MUNAVALLI
TAL: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. DODDAYALLAPPA S/O. VITTAL TALAWAR
AGE: 08 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: SOOLAKATTI ONI MUNAVALLI
TAL: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
(NOTE: APPELLANT NO.2 MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS
NATURAL MOTHER MINOR GUARDIAN APPELLANT NO.1
SMT. SAVAKKA)
...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. SHAILA BELLIKATTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. GANGAPPA DYAMAPPA BOMMANNAVAR
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: CHUNCHANUR, TAL: RAMDURG,
Digitally
signed by DIST: BELAGAVI.
BHARATHI
BHARATHI H M
HM Date:
2024.01.23 (OWNER OF SWARAJ TRACTOR AND TRAILERS BEARING
16:36:01
+0530 REG. NO.KA-24/T-9495, KA-24/T-9496 AND KA-23/T-662)
2. THE DIVISINAL MANAGER,
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
BRANCH APMC YARD, SAUNDATTI
DIST: BELAGAVI.
(OWNER OF SWARAJ TRACTOR AND TRAILERS BEARING
REG. NO.KA-24/T-9495, KA-24/T-9496 AND KA-23/T-662)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJESH B. RAJANAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:312
MFA No. 101525 of 2014
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173 (1) OF MV ACT 1988, AGAINST JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 10.04.2014, PASSED IN MVC.NO.872/2012 ON THE
FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT, SAUNDATTI,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR
ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Though this matter is listed for orders, with the
consent of both parties, the matter is taken up for final
disposal.
2. The present appeal is filed challenging the
validity of the judgment and award passed in MVC
No.872/2012 dated 10.04.2014 on the file of Senior Civil
Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Saundatti.
3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for
disposal of this case are as under:
In respect of a road traffic accident occurred on
16.12.2011 wherein Vittal Doddayallappa Talawar lost his
life involving vehicle namely Swaraj tractor and trailer
NC: 2024:KHC-D:312
bearing Reg.No.KA-24/T-9495 and KA-24/T-9496 and KA-
23/T-662. The accident has occurred on Yaragatti-
Munavalli road near the land of Arjun Kamannavar.
Therefore, the dependants of Vital have laid the claim.
4. The claim petition was resisted by filing
necessary written statement by the Insurance Company
contending that at the time of the accident, the driver of
the offending tractor-trailer unit was driving the offending
vehicle in a proper manner and it was moving in a slow
speed having regard to the heavy load of sugarcane and it
is because of the fact that deceased Vittal tried to pick up
the sugarcane from the tractor and jumped on to the road
resulting in accident and died. Therefore, it is his negligent
act and thus sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
5. Based on the rival contentions of the parties,
the Tribunal raised necessary issues and after considering
the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by
the claimant and the eyewitnesses and officer of the
Insurance Company and the material placed on record in
NC: 2024:KHC-D:312
the form of Exs.P.1 to P.7 and Exs.R.1 and R.2, the
Tribunal allowed compensation in a sum of Rs.7,32,000/-
and fastened liability on the Insurance Company taking
note of the fact that charge sheet came to be filed against
the driver of the tractor-trailer unit and also taking note
that there is valid insurance policy for the tractor-trailer
unit.
6. Being aggrieved by the meager compensation
awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants have preferred the
present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
7. Reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal
memorandum, Smt.Shaila Bellikatti, learned counsel for
the appellants vehemently contended that the approach of
the Tribunal in awarding meager compensation is incorrect
and the same has resulted in miscarriage of justice and
thus sought for enhancement of compensation.
8. She also contended that the accident is of the
year 2011. As such, notional monthly income ought to
NC: 2024:KHC-D:312
have been taken at Rs.6,000/-, but the Tribunal has taken
a sum of Rs.4,500/- as the monthly income and therefore
the approach of the Tribunal is incorrect.
9. She also contended that no compensation is
awarded on the head of future prospects by the Tribunal
and therefore having regard to the age of the deceased,
40% of the amount is to be added towards future
prospects by applying the principles of law enunciated in
the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs.
Pranay Sethi and Others reported in AIR 2017 SC
5157 and therefore the monthly income would be
Rs.6,000/- + Rs.2,400/-. 1/3rd of the income is to be
deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased
having regard to the fact that the deceased was a married
and having children. Accordingly, she submits that the
compensation is to be reassessed.
10. Per contra, Sri.Rajesh B Rajanal, learned
counsel for the Insurance Company supported the
impugned judgment and award and contended that the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:312
Tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation given the
attendant circumstances and law prevailing at the time of
disposal of the claim petition and sought for dismissal of
the appeal.
11. In view of the rival contentions of the parties,
this Court perused the material on record meticulously. On
such perusal of material on record, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the Tribunal has grossly erred in
not properly assessing the compensation following the
settled principles of law.
12. In the absence of proof of income, the Tribunal
ought to have taken monthly income at Rs.6,000/- as
against Rs.4,500/- for the accidental death of the year
2011.
13. Likewise, as per the principles of law enunciated
in Pranay Sethi supra, the claimants would be entitled to
addition of 40% towards future prospects. Accordingly, the
monthly income would be Rs.8,400/- and 1/3rd is to be
NC: 2024:KHC-D:312
deducted from the income and proper multiplier having
regard to the age of the deceased is 16. Therefore, on the
head of loss of dependency, the claimants would be
entitled to Rs.10,75,200/- [Rs.8,400 (income) x 12
(months) x 16 (multiplier) x 2/3rd (deduction)].
14. On the head of loss of consortium, the
claimants would be entitled to Rs.80,000/- (Rs.40,000/-
each) and on conventional heads the claimants would be
entitled to Rs.30,000/-. In all, the claimants would be
entitled to Rs.11,85,200/- as against Rs.7,32,000/-.
15. In view of the foregoing discussion, following
order is passed:
ORDER
i. Appeal is allowed.
ii. Impugned judgment and award stands modified.
iii. As against Rs.7,32,000/- awarded by the Tribunal,
the claimants would be entitled to Rs.11,85,200/-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:312
with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition
till realization.
iv. Insurance Company is granted four weeks time to
deposit the compensation amount.
v. Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
sh
