Karnataka High Court
Hanumavva W/O Gangadhar Balangoudar vs Imamsab S/O Ganisab Joyisaraharahalli on 6 June, 2024
Author: S G Pandit
Bench: S G Pandit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7532-DB
MFA No.102495 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102495 OF 2019 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. HANUMAVVA W/O GANGADHAR BALANGOUDAR
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
2. PRASHANTA S/O GANGADHAR BALANGOUDAR
AGE: 13 EYARS, OCC: STUDENT,
3. PRATIBHA D/O GANGADHAR BALANGOUDAR
AGE: 11 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
ALL ARE R/O: NAGENAHALLI VILLAGE,
TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
SINCE MINORS R/BY. NATURAL GUARDIAN
MOTHER WHO IS APPELLANT NO.1.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. M.H. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by K M
SOMASHEKAR
KM
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
SOMASHEKAR Dharwad
AND:
Bench
Date:
2024.06.12
10:47:13
+0530
1. IMAMSAB S/O GANISAB JOYISARAHARAHALLI
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF THE VEHICLE,
R/O: MUDENUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
(OWNER OF THE VEHICLE
BEARING REG.NO.KA-27/A-7845).
2. THE AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
ALSUR ROAD, OPP: GURUDWAR, BANGALORE.
(INSURER OF THE VEHICLE VIHICLE
BEARING REG.NO.KA-27/A-7845)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUBHASH J. BADDI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7532-DB
MFA No.102495 of 2019
NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT
1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.01.2019
PASSED IN MVC NO.127/2015 ON THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND ADDL. MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
RANEBENNUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
S G PANDIT, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Though this appeal is listed for admission, it is taken up
for final disposal, with the consent of learned counsel for
both the parties.
2. The claimants are before this Court praying for
enhancement of compensation, not being satisfied with the
quantum of compensation awarded under judgment and
award dated 1.1.2019 passed in MVC No.127/2015 on the
file of learned Prl. Senior Civil Judge and Member, Addl.
MACT, Ranebennur (for short, 'Tribunal').
3. The claimants, who are the wife & minor children
of deceased Gangadhar, filed a claim petition under Section
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation
for the accidental death of Gangadhar that took place on
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7532-DB
17.9.2014 involving Motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-
27/EA-4678 and Auto-rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-
27/A/7845. It is stated that the deceased was aged about 38
years as on the date of accident and he was doing
agricultural work as well as Goundi, earning Rs.25,000/- per
month.
4. On issuance of notice, respondent No.2 appeared
through its learned counsel and filed statement of objections
denying the entire claim petition averments. It was
contended that the driver of offending auto-rickshaw was not
having valid and effective driving license as on the date of
the accident. It was further contended that the accident took
place due to rash and negligent riding of rider of the
motorcycle in question. Thus, prayed for dismissal of the
claim petition.
5. Before the Tribunal, 1st claimant-wife of the
deceased examined herself as PW1 apart from marking the
documents as Exs.P1 to P15. Respondents examined one
witness and marked three documents as Ex.R1 to R3. The
Tribunal based on entire material evidence on record
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7532-DB
awarded total compensation of Rs.13,30,940/- with interest
at 7% per annum on the following heads:
Loss of Dependency Rs.11,75,940/-
Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of consortium Rs. 1,20,000/-
Transportation expenses Rs. 5,000/-
Total Rs.13,30,940/-
6. While awarding the above compensation, the
Tribunal assessed notional income of the deceased at
Rs.7,000/- per month, added 40% of the assessed income
towards future prospects, deducted 1/3rd towards personal
and living expenses of the deceased and applied multiplier of
15. The claimants not being satisfied with quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal are before this Court
praying for enhancement of compensation.
7. Heard Sri.M.H.Patil, learned counsel for the
appellants-claimants as well as Sri.Subhash J Baddi, learned
counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company and perused
the appeal papers including original records.
8. The only contention urged by the learned counsel
Sri.M.H.Patil for the appellants-claimants is that the Tribunal
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7532-DB
committed an error in assessing the notional income of the
deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month, which is on the lower
side, since the deceased was doing agricultural work as well
as Goundi, earning Rs.25,000/- per month. Thus, he prays
for allowing the appeal by assessing the income of the
deceased on the higher side.
9. Per contra, Sri.Subhash J Baddi, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent-Insurance Company would
contend that in the absence of any cogent or acceptable
document to prove the avocation and income of the
deceased, the Tribunal is justified in assessing notional
income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month, which is
just and proper. He further submits that the Tribunal on
appreciation of the material on record awarded just and
reasonable compensation under various heads, which does
not call for any interference at the hands of this Court.
Thus, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the appeal papers, the only point that
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7532-DB
would fall for consideration in this appeal is as to, whether
the claimants would be entitled for enhanced compensation?
11. Our answer to the above point would be in the
affirmative for the following reasons.
12. The occurrence of the accident on 17.9.2014
involving Motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-27/EA-4678
and Auto-rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-27/A/7845,
resultant death of Gangadhar is not in dispute in this appeal.
The claimants are before this Court praying for enhancement
of compensation. It is the contention of appellants-claimants
that notional income of the deceased assessed by the
Tribunal at Rs.7,000/- per month is on the lower side. The
claimants in order to prove the avocation and earning of the
deceased have not produced any cogent or acceptable
document. In the absence of any documentary evidence to
establish the avocation and income of the deceased, this
Court and Lok Adalath while settling the accidental claims of
the year 2014, would normally assess notional income at
Rs.7,500/- per month, taking note of the income chart
prepared by KSLSA based on various factors including the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7532-DB
minimum wage fixed. Therefore, in the instant case also, in
the absence of any corroborative document to establish the
income of the deceased, we are of the opinion that it would
be just and appropriate for us to determine notional income
of the deceased at Rs.7,500/- p.m., taking note of the
income chart prepared by KSLSA and also the minimum
wage fixed. There is no dispute with regard to age of the
deceased as 38 years, applicable multiplier of 14, addition of
40% of the assessed income of the deceased towards future
prospects and deduction of 1/3rd towards personal and living
expenses of the deceased, as there are three dependents.
Thus, the claimants would be entitled for modified
compensation on the head of loss of dependency as under:
Rs.12,60,000/- (Rs.7,500 + 40% x 12 x 15 x 2/3).
13. Further, the Tribunal awarded a sum of
Rs.40,000/- each on the head of loss of consortium,
Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/-
towards funeral expenses and transportation of dead body,
which in our view are just and proper, does not call for
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7532-DB
modification. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for
modified compensation on the following heads:
Sl. No. Particulars Amount
1. Loss of dependency Rs.12,60,000/-
2. Loss of estate & Funeral Rs. 30,000/-
expenses
3. Loss of consortium Rs. 1,20,000/-
(Rs.40,000/- each)
Total Rs.14,10,000/-
14. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to total
compensation of Rs.14,10,000/- as against Rs.13,30,940/-
awarded by the Tribunal.
15. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
a) The above appeal is allowed in part.
b) The impugned judgment and award of the
Tribunal is modified to an extent that the
claimants are entitled to total compensation
Rs.14,10,000/- as against Rs.13,30,940/-
awarded by the Tribunal.
c) The enhanced compensation amount will
bear interest at the rate of 6% per annum
from the date of claim petition till date of
realization.
d) The respondent-Insurance Company shall
deposit the enhanced compensation amount
with accrued interest before the Tribunal
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7532-DB
within six weeks from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this judgment.
e) On such deposit, the same shall be released
in favour of the appellant No.1/wife of the
deceased.
f) Registry to transmit the TCR to the Tribunal
forthwith.
g) Draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
JTR
Ct:VP
