Karnataka High Court
Umadevi And Anr vs Anand And Anr on 7 November, 2024
Author: R.Devdas
Bench: R.Devdas
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8165-DB
MFA No. 201887 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201887 OF 2022 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. UMADEVI W/O LATE SUBHASH
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
2. BANUCHANDAN S/O LATE SUBHASH,
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
BOTH R/O KHATAK CHINCHOLI,
TQ: BHALKI, DIST: BIDAR - 585101.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. BABU H. METAGUDDA, ADV.)
AND:
Digitally signed 1. ANAND S/O REVANAYYA,
by RAMESH
MATHAPATI
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
Location: HIGH R/O VILLAGE MURAL, TQ: BHALKI,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA DIST: BIDAR - 585101.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE: SHOP NO.7,
PARAVATHINATH ASTURE COMPLEX,
BESIDE SANGMESH THEATRE BHALKI,
THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
DR. JAWALI COMPLEX, SUPPER MARKET
KALABURAGI - 585102.
...RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH;
SRI. MOHD. ABDUL QUAYUM, ADV. FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8165-DB
MFA No. 201887 of 2022
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V.ACT
1988, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND MODIFY THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 31-12-2018 PASSED IN
M.V.C.NO.345/2017 BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE &
ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T. AT-BHALKI, AND ENHANCING THE
COMPENSATION FROM RS.8,09,052/- WITH 6% INTEREST TO
RS.49,60,000/- WITH 12% INTEREST.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA)
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 31.12.2018 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and
Addl. MACT, Bhalki (for short hereinafter referred to as
'the Tribunal') in MVC No.345/2017.
2. Though this appeal is listed for Admission, with
the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, it is
taken up for final disposal.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8165-DB
3. Parties herein are referred to as per their
ranking before the Tribunal.
4. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal are that,
on 29.05.2017 at 5.00 p.m. near Yenakur village on
Bhalki-Humnabad road while deceased Subhash was
proceeding on motorcycle bearing registration No.CD-100
SS AEQ-4274 as a pillion rider and the same was being
ridden by Dhanraj, the cruiser jeep bearing registration
No.KA-17/A-7056 being driven by its driver in a rash and
negligent manner came and dashed to the motorcycle
causing accident. As a result, pillion rider fell and
sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to
Government Hospital, Bidar and thereafter for further
treatment, he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital at
Secunderabad but succumbed to injuries on 22.06.2017. It
is contended that prior to accident, deceased was hale and
healthy, was aged 48 years and he used to work as cook
in Hotels, programs, marriages and other functions and
getting Rs.25,000/- per month. The accident occurred due
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8165-DB
to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the cruiser.
The petitioners, being the legal representatives of the
deceased Subhash, filed claim petition under Section 166
of the Act seeking compensation for the death of Subhash.
5. After service of notice, the respondents 1 and 2
appeared before the Tribunal through their respective
counsels and filed their objections.
6. Respondent No.1 filed written statement
denying the contents of petition specifically and
categorically. It is denied that the accident occurred due
to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the cruiser.
It is contended that the driver of the cruiser was driving
his vehicle in a normal speed and on the proper side of the
road, but the rider of the motorcycle was riding the
motorcycle in a high speed and negligent manner. It is
contended that the driver of the cruiser was holding valid
and effective driving license as on the date of the accident
and the said vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 and
therefore, the liability for payment of compensation lies on
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8165-DB
the respondent No.2 which is bound to indemnify the
respondent No.1. Accordingly, sought to dismiss the
petition with costs.
7. Respondent No.2 filed written statement
denying the entire averments of claim petition. The age,
avocation, income and point of the jurisdiction are also
denied. It is contended that the driver of the cruiser was
not driving the vehicle in a high speed, rash and negligent
manner. It is further contended that the rider of the
motorcycle was negligent in riding the motorcycle with
high speed in a rash and negligent manner and he himself
dashed to the cruiser and there is no fault of the driver of
cruiser and the accident has occurred due to rash and
negligent riding of the motorcycle and petitioners have
falsely involved the cruiser. It is further contended that
the driver of the cruiser jeep was not holding valid and
effective driving license as on the date of the accident.
Therefore, the respondent No.1 has violated the terms and
conditions and as such the entire liability be fastened on
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8165-DB
respondent No.1. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim
petition as against respondent No.2 with costs.
8. 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 40 documents as
Exs.P1 to P40. On the other hand, respondents did not
adduce any evidence nor marked documentary evidence.
9. The Tribunal, after assessment of oral and
documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part
with costs. It is ordered that the petitioners are entitled
for compensation of Rs.8,09,052/- along with interest at
the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till
realization. It is also held that, respondent Nos.1 and 2
are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the
petitioners and directed respondent No.2-Insurance
Company to deposit the compensation amount within a
period of one month from the date of award.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8165-DB
10. Being dissatisfied with the compensation
awarded by Tribunal, the petitioner/appellants have filed
this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
11. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants
and the learned counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance
Company.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that the Tribunal, while awarding compensation has not
added future prospects in terms 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 2018 Kant MAC 88. He
further submits that the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal on other heads is also on the lower side and on
these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal.
13. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.2/Insurance Company, supports the
judgment and award passed by the Tribunal contending
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8165-DB
that the same does not call for any interference. Hence, he
prays to dismiss the appeal.
14. We have examined the records and considered
the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
parties.
15. The occurrence of the accident, involvement of
the offending vehicle in the accident and death of Subhash
in the accident are not in dispute. In order to prove that
the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, the
petitioners have produced certified copy of FIR marked as
Ex.P1 and also produced certified copy of charge sheet
marked as Ex.P8. A perusal of Exs.P1 and P8, makes it
clear that accident occurred due to rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the offending vehicle-cruiser.
16. The appellants have contended that the
deceased used to work as cook in Hotels and other
functions and earning Rs.25,000/- per month. However,
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8165-DB
in order to substantiate the said contention, the petitioners
have not tendered any evidence before the Tribunal. In
the absence of proof of income, the notional income of the
deceased will have to be taken as per the chart prepared
by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. In terms
of the chart, for the accident of the year 2017, the
notional income will have to be taken at Rs.10,250/- per
month. Accordingly, the same is taken in this case also.
As the deceased was aged 48 years as on the date of
accident, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) 25% is to be
added towards future prospects. Thus, the monthly
income of the deceased comes to Rs.12,812/-. As the
dependants are two in number, out of the income, 1/3rd is
to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased
and after deduction, the monthly income of the deceased
comes to Rs.8,542/-. 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
commensurate to the age of the deceased who was 48 at
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8165-DB
as on the date of accident, multiplier of '13' has to be
adopted, which is rightly taken by the Tribunal. Therefore,
the petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs.13,32,552/-
(Rs.8,542/- x 12 x 13) towards loss of dependency as
against Rs.7,28,052/- awarded by the Tribunal.
17. 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 of the appellant is entitled for compensation towards
loss of consortium at Rs.40,000/-. Petitioner No.1 being
the wife of the deceased is entitled for Spousal consortium
and petitioner No.2 being the son of the deceased is
entitled for compensation towards parental consortium.
Accordingly, the compensation towards loss of consortium
would be Rs.80,000/- (Rs.40,000/- x 2).
18. In addition, the appellants are entitled a sum of
Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/-
towards loss of estate.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8165-DB
19. Thus, the appellants are entitled to total
compensation of Rs.14,42,552/- as against Rs.8,09,052/-
awarded by the Tribunal.
20. 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 as
under;
(a) The appellants are entitled to total
compensation of Rs.14,42,552/- as
against Rs.8,09,052/- awarded by
the Tribunal with interest at the rate
of 6% per annum from the date of
petition till the date of realization.
(b) It is made clear that the appellants
are not entitled for interest on the
enhanced amount for the delayed
period as per order dated
01.08.2024.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8165-DB
(c) Respondent No.2/Insurance
Company is directed to deposit the
compensation amount with interest
before the Tribunal within a period
of eight weeks from date of the
receipt of certified copy of this
judgment.
(d) Rest of the judgment relating to
apportionment, deposit and release
is kept intact;
iii. Draw award accordingly.
Sd/-
(R.DEVDAS)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
MSR
CT: PS
