Karnataka High Court
Vanita W/O Ganesh Gadig vs Iranna Yallappa Hosamani on 15 November, 2024
Author: H.T.Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T.Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16718-DB
MFA No. 100613 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100613 OF 2023 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. VANITA W/O. GANESH GADIG,
AGE 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. K.H.B COLONY, SIRSI.
(WIFE OF DECEASED).
2. MANYA GANESH GADIG,
AGE 3 YEARS, R/O K.H.B COLONY, SIRSI,
(DAUGHETER OF DECEASED),
SINCE APPELLANT NO.2 IS MINOR,
Digitally signed REP. BY NEXT FREND APPELLANT NO.1
by JAGADISH T
R MOTHER.
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench 3. LATA LAXMAN GADIG,
AGE 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD ,
R/O. K.H.B COLONY, SIRSI.
(MOTHER OF DECEASED).
4. LAXMAN NARAYAN GADIG,
AGE 64 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE ,
R/O. K.H.B COLONY, SIRSI.
(FATHER OF DECEASED).
5. ARCHANA LAXMAN GADIG,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16718-DB
MFA No. 100613 of 2023
AGE 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD ,
R/O. K.H.B COLONY, SIRSI.
(UNMARRIED SISTER OF DECEASED).
...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. VAISHALI K. KALADAGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. IRANNA YALLAPPA HOSAMANI,
R/O. VADDARA ONI, SHIRUNJA,
SHIRAHATTI, GADAG,
OWNER OF THE LORRY.
2. THE UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE
CO.LTD., 2A, 2ND FLOOR, B4,
RAMSON COMPLEX, P. B. ROAD,
HOSUR, HUBLI-580021.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. KIRAN PATEL, ADV. FOR SUBHASH J. BADDI, ADV. FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION
AS PRAYED FOR AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED
BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. M.A.C.T, SIRSI SITTING AT
SIRSI IN M.V.C NO.337/2020 DATED 18.12.2021 AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16718-DB
MFA No. 100613 of 2023
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)
This appeal is filed by the claimants, seeking
enhancement of compensation, being aggrieved by the
judgment and award dated 18.12.2021 passed in M.V.C.
No.337/2020 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge and Addl.
MACT, Sirsi1, whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of
Rs.19,22,000/- as compensation with interest at 6% p.a.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the claimants' case before the Tribunal
are as under:
The claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Tribunal seeking
compensation on account of death of Ganesh Laxman Gadig in
a road traffic accident that occurred on 20.08.2020 at about
8.15 p.m., when the deceased Ganesh Gadig was proceeding
towards Honnavar on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-
47-L-6354 and when he reached near Kumta Bus Stand, at that
'Tribunal', for short
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16718-DB
time, the driver of Lorry bearing registration No.KA-26-B-0210
came from Ankola to Honnavar in a high speed rash and
negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle of the
deceased, as a result of which, the deceased fell down,
sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same, when
he was on the way to hospital. The deceased was aged about
30 years, working as tourist driver and earning a sum of
Rs.20,000/- per month.
4. After service of notice before the Tribunal, the
respondent/Insurer resisted the claim petition by filing written
statement and denied all averments made in the claim petition.
5. The Tribunal considering the evidence on record at
Exs.P1 to P10, oral evidence of PW1, granted total
compensation of Rs.19,22,000/- with interest at 6% per annum
from the date of petition till its realization. Being aggrieved by
the same, the claimants are in appeal seeking enhancement of
compensation.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants
submits that the Tribunal committed an error in assessing the
income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month, inasmuch as
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16718-DB
the deceased was working as tourist vehicle driver and earning
a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. The Tribunal also committed
an error in not considering the age of the deceased in a proper
perspective. As per Ex.P10-SSLC Marks card, date of birth of
the deceased is 26.02.1989 and date of accident is 20.08.2020,
hence, the Tribunal ought to have taken the age of the
deceased as 30 years instead of 31 years and proper multiplier
applicable to the said age is 17 instead of 16.
7. Learned counsel further contended that there are
five dependents of the deceased, but the Tribunal considered
only four dependents and thereby wrongly deducted 1/3rd
towards personal expenses of the deceased instead of 1/4th.
She further submitted that the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal under the conventional heads is also on the lower side.
Thus, she prays for allowing the appeal by enhancing the
compensation reasonably.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondent/insurer supports the impugned judgment and
award of the Tribunal and submits that considering the oral and
documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded just
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16718-DB
and fair compensation under each heads, which does not call
for interference at the hands of this Court. Thus, he prays for
dismissal of the appeal.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the appeal papers, the only point that would
arises for our consideration in this appeal is:
"Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by
the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for
enhancement?"
10. There is no dispute with regard to the occurrence of
the accident on 20.08.2020, due to rash and negligent driving
of driver of Lorry bearing registration No.KA-26/B-0210,
resulting in death of deceased Ganesh Gadig. The Tribunal
assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/-
per month, which is on the meager side. The accident is of the
year 2020. No documentary evidence is placed on record with
regard to income of the deceased. In the absence of any proof
of income, taking note of Circular issued by the Karnataka
State Legal Services Authority as well as High Court Legal
Services Committee, Dharwad, we deem it appropriate to re-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16718-DB
assess the notional income of the deceased at Rs.13,750/- per
month.
11. In the claim petition, the claimants have mentioned
the age of the deceased as 30 years at the time of the
accident. However, on perusal of Ex.P10-copy of SSLC Marks
card of the deceased, it shows that the date of birth of the
deceased is 26.02.1989 and date of accident is 20.08.2020.
Hence, as on the date of the accident, the deceased was aged
30 years 6 months 24 days. As per decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Sarala Verma & Others Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation & Another2, multiplier applicable to
the age of the deceased is '16'. Hence, the Tribunal has
rightly adopted multiplier of 16.
12. So far as deduction of personal expenses of the
deceased is concerned, the Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd of the
assessed income. The deceased Ganesh Gadig died leaving
behind his wife, daughter, parents and sister. As per the
principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Sarala Verma supra, the deduction towards personal
2009 ACJ 1298
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16718-DB
expenses of the deceased would be 1/4th, as there are five
dependents.
13. In terms of decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Pranay Sethi & Others3, the Tribunal has rightly considered
40% of the assessed income towards future prospects. Thus,
loss of dependency is reckoned as under:
Rs.13,750 + 40%(Rs.5,500) = 19,250 x ¼ = Rs.4812.5
Rs.19,250-Rs.4,812.5=Rs.14,437.5 x 12 x 16 = Rs.27,72,000
14. The Tribunal has committed an error in not
awarding fair compensation under the head of loss of
consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. As per the
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs Nanu
Ram @ Churu Ram & Others4 and Pranay Sethi supra, the
claimants No.1 to 4 are entitled to Rs.44,000/- each towards
loss of consortium, Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate and
Rs.16,500/- towards funeral expenses including 10%
(2017) 16 SCC 680
2018 (18) SCC 130
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16718-DB
escalation. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled to modified
compensation as under:
Loss of dependency Rs.27,72,000/-
Loss of consortium (Rs.44000x4) Rs. 1,76,000/-
Loss of estate Rs. 16,500/-
Funeral expenses Rs. 16,500/-
------------------
Total Rs.29,81,000/-
------------------
15. Thus, the claimants are entitled to total
compensation of Rs.29,81,000/- as against Rs.19,22,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal.
16. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
a) The appeal filed by the claimants is allowed
in part.
b) The impugned judgment and award of the
Tribunal is modified to an extent that the
claimants would be entitled to total
compensation of Rs.29,81,000/- as against
Rs.19,22,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
c) The enhanced compensation amount shall
carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum
from the date of petition till realization.
d) Respondent/Insurer shall deposit the
enhanced compensation with accrued interest
before the Tribunal within six weeks from the
date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16718-DB
e) It is made clear that, as per order dated
15.11.2024, the appellants are not entitled
for interest on the enhanced compensation
amount for the delayed period of 197 days in
filing the appeal.
f) Draw modified award accordingly.
g) Registry is directed to send a copy of this
judgment to the Tribunal forthwith.
h) No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
JTR/ct-an
