Karnataka High Court
Smt. Saraswati And Anr vs The Divisional Controller on 4 June, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3560-DB
MFA No. 201198 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201198 OF 2018 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SARASWATI
W/O LATE VISHWANATH CHINTAMANI,
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE.
2. SUNIL
S/O LATE VISHWANATH CHINTAMANI,
AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT.
BOTH ARE R/O VILLAGE BAKCHOWDI,
TQ. & DIST: BIDAR
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SHARANABASSAPPA K BABSHETTY, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by VARSHA N AND:
RASALKAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, BIDAR
OPPOSITE TO D.C. OFFICE, (OLD BUS STAND)
MOHAN MARKET ROAD, BIDAR-585401
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SUDHIRSINGH R. VIJAPUR, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT,
PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 17.11.2017, PASSED BY THE
ADDL.M.A.C.T AND PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT
BIDAR, IN MVC NO.406/2014 AND ENHANCE THE
COMPENSATION.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3560-DB
MFA No. 201198 of 2018
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY ASHOK S. KINAGI J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act') challenging the judgment
and award dated 17.11.2017 passed by the Principal
Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Bidar, (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the
Tribunal') in MVC No.406/2014.
2. Parties are referred to as per their ranking
before the Tribunal. Appellants are the petitioners and the
respondent is the respondent before the Tribunal.
3. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal are that,
on 16.02.2014 the deceased-Hanmanthappa was
proceeding on motorcycle from Bidar to Bakchowdi at
about 18.20 hours near Kolar-K village on Bidar
Humnabad Road, at that time the driver of the KSRTC bus
bearing registration No.KA-38/F-638 came from opposite
direction in a high speed and in a rash and negligent
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3560-DB
manner and dashed against the motorcycle. Consequently
deceased Hanmanthappa sustained fatal injuries on the
vital parts of the body and head and succumbed to the
injuries. It is stated that he was aged about 23 years as
on the date of accident and he was earning Rs.50,000/- by
cultivating agricultural land and he also owned a Garments
shop at Bidar. The petitioners being the legal
representatives of the deceased-Hanmanthappa filed claim
petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking
compensation an the account of death of Hanmanthapa in
the road traffic accident.
4. The respondent filed written statement denying
the averments made in the claim petition and it is
contended that the accident has occurred due to rash and
negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle. Hence,
respondent is not entitled to pay any compensation as
claimed by the petitioners. Hence, prayed to dismiss the
claim petition.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3560-DB
5. The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of
the parties framed the issues and recorded the evidence.
In order to prove the case, the petitioners examined
petitioner No.1 as PW.1 and got marked the documents as
Exs.P1 to P8. Respondent examined the driver of the
offending vehicle as RW.1 but did not produce any
document.
6. The Tribunal, after recording the evidence and
after considering the material on record, allowed the claim
petition in part and awarded compensation of
Rs.9,65,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date of claim petition till the date of
realization and further held that respondent shall deposit
the compensation amount within two months..
7. The petitioners/appellants being aggrieved by
the judgment and award preferred this appeal seeking for
enhancement of compensation.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3560-DB
8. Heard the learned counsel for the
appellants/petitioners and the learned counsel for
respondent/respondent.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the
lower side and he submits that in order to prove the
income of the deceased-Hanmanthappa, the petitioner has
produced the income tax returns for the year 2012-13
which discloses that the deceased was an income tax
assessee and he has disclosed the income of
Rs.2,05,750/-. He submits that the Tribunal has not taken
into consideration Ex.P8 i.e., the income tax statement, on
the contrary, the Tribunal assessed the income of the
deceased as Rs.10,000/- per month which is on the lower
side and it is contrary to Ex.P8. Further, he submits that
the deceased was a bachelor. Hence, he submits that the
Tribunal has not awarded compensation under the head of
loss of consortium. On these grounds, he prays to allow
the appeal.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3560-DB
10. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent
supports the impugned judgment 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. Perused the records and considered the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
The point that arises for our consideration is with regard to
quantum of compensation.
12. It is not in dispute that the deceased
Hanmanthappa died in the road traffic accident and the
accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of
the driver of the offending vehicle and in order to prove
that accident has caused due to rash and negligent driving
of the offending vehicle, the petitioners have produced the
copy of FIR and charge sheet marked as Ex.P1 and P7
respectively.
13. Insofar as quantum of compensation, it is the
case of the petitioners that the deceased was doing the
business of garments at Bidar and earning Rs.50,000/- per
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3560-DB
month and in order to establish the income of the
deceased, the petitioners have produced the income tax
returns for the financial year 2012-13. The said income tax
statement is marked as Ex.P8 which discloses that the
deceased has disclosed his income at Rs.2,05,750/- On an
average the said amount is Rs.17,000/- per month. The
said document is sufficient to assess the income of the
deceased. Hence, we hold that the monthly income of the
deceased is Rs.17,000/- per month. To the aforesaid
amount, as the deceased was aged 23 years, 40% 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
monthly income comes to Rs.23,800/-. The deceased was
unmarried, hence, 50% has to be deducted out of the
monthly income, which comes to Rs.11,900/-. Taking into
account the age of the deceased which was 23 years at
the time of accident, multiplier of 18 has to be adopted as
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3560-DB
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.25,70,400/- (Rs.11,900x12x
18) on account of loss of dependency.
14. 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 number,
hence the compensation towards loss of consortium would
be Rs.80,000/- (40,000x2). In addition, the petitioners/
appellants are entitled a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards
funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- under the head of loss
of estate.
15. Thus, in all, the petitioners are entitled to a
sum of Rs.26,80,400/- as against Rs.9,65,000/- awarded
by the Tribunal.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3560-DB
16. 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 total
compensation of Rs.26,80,400/- as against
Rs.9,65,000/-. The petitioners are entitled
to enhanced compensation of
Rs.17,15,400/- along with interest at the
rate of 6% per annum from the date of
petition till the date of realization.
iv. Respondent 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.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
VNR
