Karnataka High Court
Smt.Seema And Ors vs Usman Sab And Ors on 3 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4530-DB
MFA No.200300 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD 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.200300 OF 2018 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.SEEMA
W/O LATE ANILKUMAR GARUDKAR,
AGE: 40 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD.
2. GIRISH
S/O LATE ANILKUMAR
AGE: 21 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT,
Digitally signed by
BASALINGAPPA
3. KRISHNAI
SHIVARAJ D/O ANILKUMAR
DHUTTARGAON
Location: HIGH AGE:21 YEARS,
COURT OF OCC: STUDENT,
KARNATAKA
4. RAMGOPAL
S/O ANILKUMAR GARUDKAR
AGE: 14 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT.
MINOR REPRESENTED
BY APPELLANT NO.1.
5. SMT. SAVITHABAI
W/O SRINIVAS RAO GARUDKAR
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4530-DB
MFA No.200300 of 2018
AGE: 67 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
ALL ARE R/O: PLOT NO.63,
NAVAJEEVAN NAGAR,
BEHIND P & T QUARTER,
KALABURAGI - 585 102.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI VENKATESH G.GAIDHANKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. USMAN SAB
S/O IMAM SAB CHINNUR,
AGE: 28 YEARS,
OCC: DRIVER OF LORRY BEARING
NO.RJ-19/GA-1689,
R/O: A.P.BHADRAPUR,
TQ: NAVALAGUNDA,
DIST: DHARWAD - 585 208.
2. MANAGER, COUNDRY FREIGHT CARRIER,
OWNER OF THE LORRY NO.RJ-19/GA-1689,
OFFICE ADDRESS: MAJEERWADI,
BHOPELE NAGAR, HOTGI ROAD,
SOLAPUR (M.H), KARNATAKA OFFICE:NO.7,
GANGAVATHI ROAD,
GINIGERA, TQ: DIST: KOPPAL - 585 201.
3. DIVISIONAL MANAGER
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
OPP. MINI VIDHAN SOUDHA,
STATION ROAD, KALABURAGI - 585 101.
(POLICY NO.242202/31/2014/394
PERIOD FROM 1-5-2013 TO 30.04.2014)
4. BASAVARAJ
S/O SRIMANTHRAYA CHINCHOLLI
AGE: 39 YEARS,
OCC: DRIVER OF CAR BEARING
NO.KA.50/M-9813,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4530-DB
MFA No.200300 of 2018
R/O: GOLA(B) TQ: ALAND,
DIST: KALABURAGI - 585 101.
5. MANAGER, G.V.R. INFRA PROJECTS LTD.,
OWNER OF CAR BEARING
NO.KA.50/M-9813,
NO.476, TALA CAUVERY LAYOUT,
AMRUTHA HALLI, BYATARAYANAPURA,
NEW BANGALORE, INTERNATIONAL
AIR PORT ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 092.
6. LEGAL MANAGER
I.C.I.C.I. LOMBARD GENERAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
1-45/A, KOTHARI COMPLEX,
THIMMAPURI CHOWK,
COURT ROAD, STATION BAZAR ROAD,
KALABURAGI- 585 102.
7. SRINIVAS RAO
S/O SIDRAMAPPA GARUDKAR
AGE: 78 YEARS,
OCC: RETD. TEACHER,
PLOT NO.63 NAVAJEEVAN NAGAR,
BEHIND P & T QUARTER,
KALABURAGI - 585 102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI MANJUNATH MALLAYYA SHETTY, ADVCOATE FOR R6;
NOTICE TO R1, R2, R4, R5 AND R7 ARE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL OF
THE APPELLANT AND SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 06.04.2017 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND M.A.C.T., KALABURAGI IN M.V.C. NO.49/2014
AND BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD ENHANCE
THE COMPENSATION AWARD AMOUNT FROM RS.71,22,256/-
TO RS.1,35,00,000/- IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4530-DB
MFA No.200300 of 2018
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
ASHOK S. KINAGI J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the claimants/appellants under
Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short,
hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') challenging the
judgment and award dated 06.04.2017 passed by the
Principal Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Kalaburagi, (for short, hereinafter referred to as
'the Tribunal') in MVC No.49/2014.
2. Parties are referred to as per their ranking
before the Tribunal.
3. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal are that
on 21.10.2013 the deceased-Anilkumar had been to Hubli
from Gulbarga to attend an official meeting of Railway
Department. On 21.10.2013 at about 9.30 p.m., after
attending the meeting, he was returning in an Innova car
bearing registration No.KA.05/M-9813 on Koppal-Hospet
NH-63 Basapur Seema road. The driver of the said car by
driving the car in a high speed and in a rash and negligent
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4530-DB
manner caused the accident by dashing to the parked
goods lorry bearing registration No.RJ-19/GA-1689 which
was parked at the left side on half of the tar road without
indication or parking lights by respondent No.1. Due to
the accident, the deceased-Anilkumar sustained severe
injuries and died on the spot. The petitioners have
contended that the deceased-Anilkumar was aged about
46 years and was working as an Executive Engineer of
Karnataka Roads Development Corporation, Gulbarga and
he was drawing monthly salary of Rs.65,000/-. The
petitioners were depending on the income of the deceased
and he was the only bread earner in the family. Due to the
death of Anilkumar, they are put to untold hardship.
Therefore, petitioners being the legal heirs of the
deceased-Anilkumar filed claim petition under Section 166
of the Act seeking compensation of Rs.1,35,00,000/- for
the death of Anilkumar in the road traffic accident.
4. Inspite of service of notice, respondent Nos.1
and 2 remained absent and they were placed exparte.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4530-DB
Respondent Nos.3 and 6 have filed separate written
statements denying the averments made in the claim
petition. Respondent No.3 mainly contended that the
driver of the offending lorry and the driver of the car had
no valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the
accident and the compensation claimed is too exorbitant.
Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim petition. Respondent
No.6 filed written statement denying the averments made
in the claim petition and contended that the insurance
policy was valid as on the date of the accident and the
liability is subject to terms and conditions of the policy and
prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
5. The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of
the parties framed the issues.
6. In order to prove the contents of the claim
petition, petitioner No.1 was examined as PW.1 and got
marked 21 documents as Exs.P1 to P21. Respondent No.3
examined its officer as RW.1 and got marked one
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4530-DB
document as Ex.D1. The official of respondent No.6 was
examined as RW.2.
7. The Tribunal, after recording the evidence,
hearing both side and on assessment of the oral and
documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part
with cost against respondent Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6. It is
ordered that the petitioners are entitled for total
compensation of Rs.71,22,256/- along with interest at the
rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till
the realization of entire compensation amount. Further,
the Tribunal directed respondent Nos.3 and 6 being the
insurer of the offending vehicles to deposit the entire
compensation amount with interest and cost at the rate of
50:50 before the Tribunal within 30 days from the date of
the said judgment and award.
8. The petitioners/appellants, being dissatisfied
with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, have
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4530-DB
preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of
compensation.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the
appellants/petitioners and the learned counsel for
respondent Nos.3 and 6/Insurance Companies.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that the deceased-Anilkumar was working as an Executive
Engineer and was drawing gross salary of Rs.56,963/- per
month. But, the Tribunal has taken the income of the
deceased at Rs.45,873/-. He submits that the Tribunal
has committed an error in assessing the income of the
deceased at Rs.45,873/-. On these grounds, he prays to
allow the appeal.
11. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent
Nos.3 and 6/Insurance Companies supports the impugned
judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and submit
that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4530-DB
proper and does not call for any interference. On these
grounds, they pray to dismiss the appeal.
12. Perused the records and considered the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
13. The point that arises for our consideration is
with regard to quantum of compensation.
14. It is not in dispute that the deceased-Anilkumar
met with accident and he sustained multiple injuries and
succumbed to the injuries in the road traffic accident that
occurred on 21.10.2013. In order to establish that the
accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of
the driver of both the offending vehicles, the petitioners
have produced certified copy of the FIR marked as Ex.P1
and certified copy of charge sheet marked as Ex.P6. Ex.P6
discloses that the accident has occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the drivers of both the vehicles.
Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in recording finding
that the petitioners have proved that the accident has
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4530-DB
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the drivers of
both the offending vehicles.
15. Insofar as quantum of compensation, it is the
case of the petitioners that the deceased-Anilkumar was
working as Executive Engineer in the Karnataka Roads
Development Corporation, Gulbarga and he was drawing
salary of Rs.65,000/- per month. In order to establish
that the deceased-Anilkumar was working as Executive
Engineer in the Karnataka Roads Development
Corporation, Gulbarga, the petitioners have produced
salary certificate for the month of September, 2013
marked as Ex.P8. From perusal of Ex.P8, it discloses that
the deceased-Anilkumar was drawing gross salary of
Rs.56,963/- per month. Therefore, the annual gross salary
of the deceased would be Rs.6,83,556/- (Rs.56,963 x 12).
After deducting Rs.2,400/- towards professional tax, the
annual income of the deceased would come to
Rs.6,81,156/-. As per the income tax slab for the financial
year 2013-2014, tax is exempted upto Rs.2,00,000/- and
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4530-DB
for the income above Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.6,81,156
Rs.2,00,000 =Rs.4,81,156/-), 10% tax has to be deducted
(Rs.4,81,156/- x 10%=Rs.48,115). After deducting
income-tax of 10%, it comes to Rs.6,33,041/-
(Rs.6,81,156 - Rs.48,115). Thus, we re-assess the
income of the deceased at Rs.6,33,041/- per annum. To
the aforesaid amount, as the deceased was aged 47 years,
30% of the said amount has to be added on account of
future prospects 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. Thus,
the income comes to Rs.8,22,953/-. After excluding
claimant No.5, there are five claimants. Hence, 1/4th of
the said income has to be deducted towards personal
expenses of the deceased which comes to Rs.6,17,215/-
(Rs.8,22,953/- - Rs.2,05,738/-). Taking into account the
age of the deceased which was 47 years at the time of
accident, multiplier of 13 has to be adopted as per the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4530-DB
Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported
in (2009)6 SCC 121. Therefore, the petitioners are
entitled to a sum of Rs.80,23,795/- (Rs.6,17,215 x 13) on
account of loss of dependency.
16. Further, in view of the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi
(supra) and 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.44,000/- towards loss of consortium. The
petitioners are six in number, hence, the compensation
towards loss of consortium would be Rs.2,64,000/-
(44,000x6). In addition, the petitioners/appellants are
entitled to a sum of Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate and
Rs.16,500/- towards funeral and transportation expenses.
17. Petitioner No.5 is the father of the deceased
and he is a retired teacher and he was getting pension.
Therefore, petitioner No.5 was not the dependent on the
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4530-DB
deceased. Hence, the Tribunal was justified in not
awarding compensation to petitioner No.5.
18. Thus, in all, petitioner Nos.1 to 4 and 6 are
entitled to a total compensation of Rs.83,20,795/- as
against Rs.71,22,256/- awarded by the Tribunal.
19. 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. Petitioner Nos.1 to 4 and 6 are entitled to
total compensation of Rs.83,20,795/- as
against Rs.71,22,256/- awarded by the
Tribunal. Petitioner Nos.1 to 4 and 6 are
entitled to enhanced compensation of
Rs.11,98,539/- along with interest at the
rate of 6% per annum from the date of
petition till the date of realization.
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4530-DB
iv. Respondent Nos.3 and 6/Insurance
Companies are directed to deposit the
enhanced compensation amount with
accrued interest before the Tribunal, at the
ratio of 50:50, within a period of eight
weeks from the date of the receipt of
certified copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
NB
Ct;Vk
