Karnataka High Court
Jaysheela @ Jasila And Ors vs Navanath And Anr on 25 October, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7871
MFA No. 201943 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201943 OF 2018 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. JAYSHEELA @ JASILA
W/O PINTU TADAVI,
AGE: 28 YRS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
2. KUMARI RINKU
D/O PINTU TADAVI,
AGE: 11 YRS,
OCC: STUDENT,
3. KUMARI ASHA
D/O PINTU TADAVI,
AGE: 09 YRS,
OCC: STUDENT,
Digitally signed
by RENUKA 4. SUKHALAL S/O MOHAN TADAVI,
Location: HIGH AGE:64 YRS, OCC: NIL,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 5. RAMAJI W/O SUKHALAL TADAVI,
AGE:53 YRS OCC: HH WORKM
ALL ARE R/O. SATTIPANI
TQ:BHULANE, DIST: NANDURBAR,
NOW RESIDING AT TAKKE,
ATHANI ROAD VIJAYAPUR-586101,
(APPELLANTS NO. 2 & 3 ARE MINOR
R/BY NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER
APPELLANT NO.1
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. BAPUGOUDA SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7871
MFA No. 201943 of 2018
AND:
1. NAVANATH
S/O BHAGAWAN MATE,
AGE: 48 YRS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O BHEND, TQ:MADHAD,
DIST: SOLAPUR-413001
(MAHARASHTRA STATE).
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,
SANGAM BUILDING, S.S. FRONT ROAD,
VIJAYAPUR-586101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. KOUJALAGI C. L., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE FOR 2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO,
TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.01.2018
PASSED IN MVC NO.494/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF
THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MEMBER MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NO.XIII VIJAYAPURA AT
VIJAYAPURA AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL TO GRANT THE
COMPENSATION AMOUNT OF RS.7,27,000/- ONLY AS CLAIMED
BY THE APPELLANTS BEFORE THIS HON BLE COURT; THE
APPELLANTS HAVE ALSO CHALLENGING THE 50%
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE
MOTORCYCLE FIXED BY THE TRIBUNAL; ORDER FOR COSTS OF
THIS APPEAL.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7871
MFA No. 201943 of 2018
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
The captioned appeal is by the claimants, who are
assailing the compensation determined by the Tribunal in
MVC No.494/2015. The respondent - Insurance Company
admits its liability. Therefore, appeal is purely on
quantum. The claimants are also questioning negligence
part.
2. The appellants filed a claim petition for having
lost one Pintu Tadvi, who is the husband of appellant No.1,
father of appellant Nos.2 and 3 and son of appellant Nos.4
and 5. Appellants contended that deceased was aged
about 30 years and was earning Rs.9,000/- per month.
The Tribunal having examined the police records coupled
with the admissions elicited in cross-examination of one of
the claimant that the accident occurred in the middle of
the road, held that the rider of the bike was equally
negligent and has contributed to the accident. The
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7871
Tribunal accordingly held that first appellant's husband is
negligent to an extent of 50%.
3. While determining compensation, the Tribunal
assessed the income of deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month,
without adding future prospects awarded a sum of
Rs.10,71,000/- under the head of loss of dependency.
Under conventional heads, a sum of Rs.70,000/- was
awarded.
4. This Court on reassessing the evidence on
record, is of the view that though appellants have not
substantiated that deceased was earning Rs.9,000/- per
month, in the absence of income proof, this Court is
inclined to rely on the income chart prepared by the
Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. Having regard
to the date of accident, income is notionally assessed at
Rs.7,500/- and if 40% is added, income comes to
Rs.10,500/- per month. Since there are five dependants
and deducting 1/4th, income is assessed at Rs.7,875/- per
month and by applying multiplier of 17, compensation
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7871
determined under the head of loss of dependency works
out to Rs.16,06,500/- [(Rs.7,500+40%)
=10,500x12x17x1/4th].
5. Under conventional heads, there are five
dependents and accordingly, Rs.2,00,000/- is awarded.
Under the head of funeral expenses and loss of estate,
Rs.30,000/- is awarded. Since accident is of the year
2014, in view of 10% escalation contemplated by the Apex
Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd.
vs. Pranay Sethi1, additional sum of Rs.46,000/- is
awarded on Rs.2,30,000/-. Therefore, total compensation
payable is re-determined at Rs.18,82,500/- as against
Rs.11,41,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
6. Insofar as negligence is concerned, though
charge sheet is filed against the driver of offending goods
vehicle and it is elicited in the cross-examination that the
accident occurred on the middle of the road, however, this
Court is of the view that Tribunal erred in fastening 50%
(2017) 16 SCC 680
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7871
negligence on the rider of the bike i.e., husband of
appellant No.1. Having regard to the fact that there was
collision between bike and offending goods vehicle, this
Court is of the view that driver of the offending goods
vehicle was required to be more cautious and diligent.
The fact that there was head on collision, driver of the
offending goods vehicle has to be held more accountable
compared to the rider of bike. Therefore, negligence is re-
fixed at 30:70 i.e., 30% on the rider of bike and 70% on
the driver of offending goods vehicle.
7. For the foregoing reasons, this Court passes the
following:
ORDER
a) Appeal is allowed in part.
b) Appellants are entitled for enhanced
compensation of Rs.7,41,500/- with interest at
the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim
petition till its realization.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7871
c) Negligence is reassessed at 30% on the rider of
the bike and 70% on the driver of the offending
goods vehicle.
d) Apportionment in terms of order of the Tribunal.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
SRT
CT-SW
