Karnataka High Court
Sunand And Anr vs Raju And Anr on 1 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4436-DB
MFA No. 200840 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200840 OF 2022 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SUNANDA
W/O ANANDAPPA CHINIWALAR,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O NARAYANPUR, TQ. SURPPUR,
NOW RESIDING AT GANESH NAGAR,
DISTRICT: VIJAYAPURA.
2. ANDANAPPA
S/O BASAPPA CHINIWALAR,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
Digitally signed by R/O NARAYANPURA, TQ. SURPPUR,
BASALINGAPPA
SHIVARAJ NOW RESIDING AT GANESH NAGAR,
DHUTTARGAON DISTRICT: VIJAYAPURA.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. HARSHAVARDHAN R. MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAJU S/O MAIBUSAB TAKKALAKI
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O MASUTI, TQ. B.BAGEWADI,
DISTRICT: VIJAYAPURA 586 101.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4436-DB
MFA No. 200840 of 2022
2. THE MANAGER
ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE
INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
CORPORATE CLAIM DEPT.
SUNDARAM TOWERS,
NO.45 AND 46, WHITES ROAD,
CHENNAI - 600 004.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANGANABASAVA B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO
ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION TO
RS.28,16,015/- (EXCLUDING THE AMOUNT AWARDED BY THE
TRIBUNAL) ALONG WITH INTEREST BY MODIFYING THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD OF THE MEMBER MACT NO.XIII AT
VIJAYAPUR DATED 02.02.2021, IN MVC NO.533 OF 2018, IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY RAJESH RAI K. J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This Miscellaneous First Appeal by the
appellants/petitioners under Section 173(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act') challenging the judgment
and award dated 02.02.2021 in MVC No.533/2018 passed
by the IV Additional District Judge and Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal-XIII, Vijayapura (for short hereinafter
referred to as 'the Tribunal') wherein the Tribunal partly
allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants and
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4436-DB
granted total compensation of Rs.26,36,661/- along with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of
petition till its realisation.
2. Parties are referred to as per their ranking
before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal
are that on 22.03.2018 at about 12.30 pm., near
Sri.Sadanand Ashram, Malghan to Masuti road near
Malghan village, deceased Pramod was proceeding on his
motorcycle being rider in a moderate speed from Malghan
to Masuti on extreme left side of the road, at that time,
the driver of the goods Tum-Tum vehicle bearing its
chassis No.MD2A98AY7HWJ26808 and its Engine
No.BBYWHJ51350 came from opposite side with high
speed in a rash and negligent manner and caused the
accident. Due to the impact, Pramod sustained grievous
injuries and succumbed to the same. Subsequently, on the
basis of complaint, Kolhar Police registered a case in Crime
No.55/2018 and laid the charge sheet against the driver of
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4436-DB
the offending Tum Tum vehicle. Hence, petitioners being
the legal representatives of the deceased filed claim
petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking
compensation for the death of Pramod in the road traffic
accident.
4. After service of notice, respondent Nos.1 and 2
appeared through their advocates and filed written
statement by denying the averments made in the claim
petition. The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of the
parties framed the issues and recorded the evidence.
5. In order to prove the case, the petitioners
examined petitioner No.1 as P.W.1 so also got examined
one more witness on her behalf as P.W.2 and got marked
13 documents as Exs.P1 to P13. Nevertheless, the
Insurance Company also examined its officer as RW.1 and
got marked 2 documents as Ex.R1 and R2.
6. After assessment of oral and documentary
evidence, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4436-DB
and awarded compensation of Rs.26,36,661/- as stated
supra and further held that the respondent Nos.1 and 2
are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation
and directed respondent No.2 to deposit the entire
compensation amount within 30 days from the date of
award.
7. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners
/appellants have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of
compensation.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioners so also the learned counsel for the second
respondent/Insurance company.
9. It is the primary contention of the learned
counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal failed to take
into consideration the salary of the deceased as per salary
certificate Ex.P12. According to him, the monthly salary of
the deceased was Rs.23,824/-. The Tribunal wrongly
considered salary as per salary shown in the service
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4436-DB
records Rs.18,930/- as his monthly salary. Accordingly,
the Tribunal erred while passing the impugned judgment
and award.
10. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for
the second respondent/Insurance Company supports the
impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and
submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
just and proper and does not call for interference and
prays to dismiss the appeal.
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties, the only point arises for our consideration is:
i. Whether the Tribunal is justified in
awarding compensation to the claimants?
12. As could be seen from the records, the accident
in question so also involvement of the offending vehicle
which was covered by the Insurance Company of the
respondent No.2 are not in dispute in this case. The only
question that we have to consider is granting of
compensation. We have carefully perused the document
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4436-DB
placed by the petitioners i.e., salary certificate Ex.P12. On
perusal of the same, it reveals that the deceased had
annual income of Rs.2,85,888/-. As per Income Tax Rules,
no tax is payable up to income of Rs.2,50,000/- After
deducting Rs.2,50,000/- from Rs.2,85,888/- it comes to
Rs.35,888/-. The said income falls within 5% slab.
Therefore, tax payable comes to Rs.1,794/-. Hence, the
total income of the deceased comes to Rs.2,84,094/-
(Rs.2,85,888-1,794) after deducting tax. The deceased
was aged about 26 years and working in HESCOM which is
a Government undertaking. In view of the law laid down
by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the
case of National Insurance Company Limited vs.
Pranay Sethi and Others reported in AIR 2017 SC
5157, 50% of the said income has to be added on account
of future prospects. Thus, the monthly income comes to
Rs.4,26,141/-. Out of which, 50% of the said income is to
be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased
and therefore, the monthly income of the deceased comes
to Rs.2,13,070/-. Taking into account the age of the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4436-DB
deceased which was 26 years at the time of accident,
multiplier of '17' has to be adopted as per the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma
vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6
SCC 121. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to a sum
of Rs.36,22,198/- (Rs.2,13,070x17) on account of loss of
dependency.
13. Further, in view of the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General
Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram Alias
Chuhru Ram & Others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130,
each petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards
loss of consortium. The petitioners are two in numbers,
hence, the compensation towards loss of consortium would
be Rs.80,000/- (40,000x2). In addition, the
petitioners/appellants are entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/-
towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- under the head
of loss of estate.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4436-DB
14. Thus, in all, the petitioners are entitled to a
sum of Rs.37,32,198/- as against Rs.26,36,661/- awarded
by the Tribunal.
15. In view of the above discussion, we proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed in part.
ii. The impugned judgment and award
passed by the Tribunal is modified.
iii. The petitioners are entitled to an
enhanced compensation of Rs.10,95,537/-
along with interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date of petition till the
date of realization.
iv. The second respondent / Insurance
Company is directed to deposit the
compensation amount before the Tribunal
within a period of eight weeks from date
of the receipt of certified copy of this
judgment.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4436-DB
v. Office is directed to transmit the trial
Court records to the concerned Tribunal
forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
VNR
CT;BN
