Karnataka High Court
Balasaheb And Anr vs C.S. Vishnu And Anr on 25 October, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7902
MFA No. 202609 of 2019
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. 202609 OF 2019 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. BALASAHEB
S/O SIDDARAYA BIRADAR
AGE: 53 YEARS
OCC: NIL
R/O: MENDIGERI, TQ: JATH
DIST: SANGLI
2. SHANTABAI
W/O BALASO @ BALASAHEB BIRADAR
AGE: 51 YEARS
OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK
R/O: MENDIGERI, TQ: JATH
DIST: SANGLI.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SANGANAGOUDA V. BIRADAR, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by RENUKA
Location: HIGH
AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1. C.S. VISHNU
S/O SURENDRAN
AGE: 43 YEARS
OCC: BUSINESS
R/O: CHAZHIKULAM HOUSE
KANNAMKULA NAGAR, KOORKANE
HERRY, PO THRISSUR
STATE KERALA-680 007.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
HANAMSHETTY BUILDING
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7902
MFA No. 202609 of 2019
GURUKUL ROAD
VIJAYAPURA-586 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M. SUMEDH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. UDAY P. HONGUNTIKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO
ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AS
CLAIMED IN THE CLAIM PETITION BY MODIFYING THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.07.2019 PASSED BY THE
COURT OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
AND MEMBER, MACT NO.III AT VIJAYAPURA, IN MVC
NO.814/2017, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
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 questioning
the compensation determined by the Tribunal in
MVC.No.814/2017. The respondent No.2/Insurance
company has admitted its liability. Therefore, the appeal
is purely on quantum.
2. The appellants herein filed a claim petition for
having lost their son Appasaheb in a road traffic accident
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7902
dated 04.08.2017. The appellants claimed that their son
was hardly aged 30 years and was employed with Novo
Nordisk Service Centre (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru.
Appellants claimed that their son had worked since 2016
and was drawing a salary of Rs.5,25,000/- per annum and
therefore, filed a claim petition.
3. Appellants to substantiate the income of the
deceased placed reliance on the salary certificate vide
Exs.P-8 and P-9 and also reliance was placed on pay slips
at Exs.P-10 to P-12. The Tribunal by partially accepting
the salary certificate and pay slips, assessed the income of
the deceased at Rs.4,12,285/- per annum, and by
deducting 50% and applying the multiplier of 17, awarded
a sum of Rs.47,03,411/- under the head of 'loss of
dependency'. Under conventional heads, a sum of
Rs.30,000/- is awarded.
4. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and
learned counsel appearing for the respondent
No.2/Insurance company.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7902
5. On meticulous examination of the salary
certificate evidenced at Ex.P-9, this Court would find that
the Tribunal erred in misreading this salary certificate and
therefore, was not justified in assessing the income of the
deceased at Rs.4,12,285/- per annum. While doing so,
the Tribunal has also deducted the employees contribution
towards PF at the rate of Rs.22,264/- and gratuity at the
rate of Rs.8,924/-. These contributions were made as
appellants' son was employed with the company. Had he
been alive, the employers would have continued to
contribute its contribution towards provident fund and also
towards gratuity. Therefore, this Court is of the view that
these two components could not have been discarded by
the Tribunal while determining the compensation under
the head of loss of dependency. The only deductions that
can be made in the case on hand is professional tax of
Rs.2,400/- on Rs.4,43,475/- annual income as well as
10% income tax amounting to Rs.14,107/-. The Tribunal
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7902
was justified in not considering the components C and D
indicated in the salary certificate.
6. Even if these are not considered, the actual
income of the appellant works out to Rs.4,43,475/-. After
professional and income tax deduction, the income is
taken at Rs.4,26,968/- per annum and by adding 50%
towards future prospects, the income is taken at
Rs.6,40,452/-. Admittedly, deceased was a bachelor and
50% towards his personal expenses needs to be deducted
and therefore, the income is taken at Rs.3,20,226/-. By
applying the multiplier of 17, the compensation payable
under the head of 'loss of dependency' works out to
Rs.54,43,842/- (3,20,226x17).
7. Under conventional heads, a sum of
Rs.1,10,000/- is awarded. The accident is of the year
2017. By applying the principles laid down in National
Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors.1, 10%
escalation has to be considered on Rs.1,10,000/- for every
2017 ACJ 2700 SC
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7902
three years and an additional amount of Rs.22,000/- is
added. The total compensation re-determined by this
Court works out to Rs.55,75,842/- as against
Rs.47,33,411/- awarded by the Tribunal.
8. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds
to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part;
(ii) The judgment and award passed by the
Tribunal in MVC.No.814/2017 is modified;
(iii) The appellants are entitled to enhanced
compensation of Rs.8,42,431/- which shall carry
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the
date of petition till realization;
(iv) The apportionment shall be made in
terms of the order of the Tribunal;
(v) The amount in deposit, if any, shall be
remitted to the Tribunal.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
