Karnataka High Court
Munnabai And Ors vs M/S Universal Cargo Movers, And Anr on 26 June, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4290-DB
MFA No.201059 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26TH 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.201059 OF 2021 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. MUNNABAI
W/O LATE KALLAPPA RACHAPNOOR,
AGE: 36 YEARS,
OCC: HOSUEHOLD,
2. HANMANTH
S/O LATE KALLAPPA RACHAPNOOR,
AGE: 12 YEARS (MINOR),
3. DEVRAJ
S/O LATE KALLAPPA RACHAPNOOR,
Digitally signed by AGE: 09 YEARS (MINOR),
BASALINGAPPA
SHIVARAJ
DHUTTARGAON 4. SWATI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF D/O LATE KALLAPPA RACHAPNOOR,
KARNATAKA
AGE: 06 YEARS (MINOR),
5. SHIVALINGAPPA
S/O BANDEPPA RACHAPNOOR,
AGE: 67 YEARS,
OCC: NIL
ALL ARE R/AT: ATLAPUR VILLAGE,
TQ: BASAVAKALYAN,
DIST: BIDAR - 585 327.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI B.C.JAKA, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4290-DB
MFA No.201059 of 2021
AND:
1. M/S. UNIVERSAL CARGO MOVERS,
OWNER OF CONTAINER LORRY
BEARING NO.UK-04/CA-2637,
LEACHI BAGH,
QUILA RAMPUR ROAD, BAREILLY,
DIST: BAREILLY, UTTAR PRADESH
STATE - 243 001.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE:OPP SANGAM TALKIES,
SUPER MARKET, KALABURAGI - 585 102.
VIDE POLICY NO.0805003116P115263343,
VALID FROM 14.02.2017 TO 13.02.2018.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ANURADHA M. DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY
MODIFYING THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
10.06.2020 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
J.M.F.C., AT BASAVAKALYAN IN M.V.C.NO.101/2018 AND
CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO ENHANCE THE
COMPENSATION OF RS.47,27,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 12%
PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ACTUAL
REALIZATION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
ASHOK S. KINAGI J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4290-DB
MFA No.201059 of 2021
JUDGMENT
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed by the
petitioners under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act
(for short 'the Act') challenging the judgment and award
dated 10.06.2020 in MVC No.101/2018 passed by the
Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Basavakalyan, (for short
hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal').
2. Parties are referred to as per their ranking
before the Tribunal. Appellants are the petitioners and the
respondents are the respondents before the Tribunal.
3. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal are that,
deceased - Kalappa was working as driver in NEKRTC,
Basavakalyan Depot. On 30.11.2017 when the bus was
near Swagat Delicacy Hotel of Arur village on NH-7 road
Chikkaballapura Taluka at 5.00 a.m., Kalappa was driving
the bus in a slow manner and cautiously. At that time, a
Container Lorry bearing No.UK-04/CA-2637 was parked on
the middle of the road without any indicators. The
dceased Kalappa tried to avoid collusion with the said
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4290-DB
container, but he failed to do so. As a result, front portion
of the bus came in collusion with the said Lorry Container.
Due to which, the driver Kalappa sustained grievous
injuries on his stomach, knee and all other parts of the
body and he was shifted to Govt. Hospital at
Chikkaballapura. However, he was declared to be dead.
The petitioners being the legal heirs of the deceased -
Kalappa filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Act
seeking compensation on account of death of Kalappa in
the road accident. Before filing the present appeal, the
petitioner No.5 died and her LRs are already on record.
4. Respondent No.1/Insurance Company filed
written statement denying the averments made in the
claim petition and it is contended that there was
negligence on the part of deceased Kalappa, the driver of
the bus. Hence, the Insurance company is not liable to
pay the compensation and on these grounds prayed to
dismiss the claim petition.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4290-DB
5. The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of
the parties, framed the relevant issues and recorded the
evidence. In order to prove the case, the petitioners
examined petitioner No.1 as PW.1 and got examined two
other witnesses as P.Ws.2 and 3 and got marked 14
documents as Exs.P1 to P14. The respondent No.2 has
examined its official as R.W.1 and got marked no
documents on its behalf.
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.32,73,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per
annum from the date of claim petition till the date of
realization and further held that respondent Nos.1 and 2
are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation and
directed respondent No.2 to deposit compensation within
two months from the date of award.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4290-DB
7. Being dissatisfied with the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioners have filed this
appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners
and also learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that, the Tribunal has committed an error in not adding
50% future prospects to the income of the deceased as
per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi
reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. He further contended
that, the Tribunal has not awarded compensation under
the head of loss of consortium as per the judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General
Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram Alias
Chuhru Ram & Others reported in (2018) 18 SCC
130. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the
appeal by enhancing the compensation.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4290-DB
10. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.2/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. Perused the records and considered the
submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The
point that arises for our consideration is quantum.
12. It is not in dispute that, the deceased Kalappa
was the driver of NEKRTC. He was driving the vehicle on
the date of accident. Further, the accident was occurred
due to wrong parking of the Lorry Container and as the
deceased Kalappa dashed to the said lorry, as a result of
which, he sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to
the said injuries. In order to establish that the driver of
the Lorry Container has parked the vehicle on the middle
of the road, the petitioners have produced the certified
copies of the FIR and charge-sheet marked as Exs.P.1 and
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4290-DB
6, on perusal of which clearly indicates that the accident
was occurred due to wrong parking of Lorry Container and
the charge-sheet is filed against the driver of the Lorry
Container. The Tribunal was justified in recording the
finding that the accident was occurred due to wrong
parking of the driver of the offending vehicle.
13. Insofar as quantum of compensation, it is the
case of the petitioners that deceased Kalappa was working
as Driver in NEKRTC. In order to establish that, he was
working as a Driver, the petitioners have produced the
certified copies of the Salary Certificate marked at Ex.P.12
of the deceased which disclose that the petitioner was
drawing salary of Rs.23,800/-. After deduction of
professional tax, he was getting monthly salary of
Rs.23,600/- p.m. In view of the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Praney Sethi (supra),
50% of the future prospects to be added to the monthly
income of the deceased i.e., Rs.23,600/- + 50%
(11,800/-) = Rs.35,400/-. Thus, we assess the monthly
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4290-DB
income of the deceased is assed at Rs.35,400/- per
month. As submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that before filing of this appeal, the petitioner
No.5 died, there are now five dependents. Hence, the
appropriate deduction would be 1/4th. The deceased was
aged about 39 years as on the date of the accident, the
multiplier of 15 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. Thus, the petitioners are entitled to a sum of
Rs.47,79,000/- [Rs.23,600/- + 50% (11,800/-) =
Rs.35,400/- less 1/4th (Rs.8,850/-) = Rs.26,550x12x15]
as compensation under the head '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 petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/-
towards loss of consortium. Thus, the petitioners are
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4290-DB
entitled for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (40,000 x 5)
towards loss of consortium. In addition, the petitioners
are entitled to 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.50,09,000/- as against Rs.32,73,000/- awarded
by the Tribunal and the petitioners are entitled for
enhanced compensation of Rs.17,36,000/- with interest at
the rate of 6% per annum.
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 dated
10.06.2020 passed by the Tribunal is
modified.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4290-DB
iii. The petitioner Nos.1 to 4 and 6 are
entitled to a total compensation of
Rs.50,09,000/- as against Rs.32,73,000/-
and enhanced compensation of
Rs.17,36,000/- along with interest at the
rate of 6% per annum from the date of
petition till the date of its realization.
iv. Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the
entire compensation along with interest
before the Tribunal within a period of
eight weeks from date of the receipt of
certified copy of this judgment.
v. Insofar as the share of compensation
awarded to petitioner No.5 (since now
deceased) is disbursed to petitioner Nos.1
to 4 and 6 in the ratio of 2%, 2%, 2%,
2% and 2%, respectively.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4290-DB
vi. Insofar as deposit, disbursement and
release of the enhanced amount shall be
as per the order of the Tribunal.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
BL
Ct;Vk
