Karnataka High Court
Smt. Jayashri W/O Shankar Batageri And ... vs Dalbir Singh S/O Dharam Singh And Anr on 13 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1034
MFA No. 200145 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200145 OF 2020 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. JAYASHRI W/O SHANKAR BATAGERI,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
2. SHANKAR S/O SHARNABASAPPA BATAGERI,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
(THE APPELLANT IS DIED,
HIS LRS ON RECORD.
AMENDED AS PER ORDER
DATED 22.01.2025)
3. SMITHA D/O SHANKAR BATAGERI,
AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
Digitally signed ALL R/O TAMALAWADI, TQ. TULJAPUR,
by LUCYGRACE
Location: HIGH DIST. USMANABAD,
COURT OF NOW RESIDING AT H.NO.10-121,
KARNATAKA
BANASHANKARI LAYOUT,
NEAR GOA HOTEL, KALABURAGI.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SANJEEV PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DALBIR SINGH S/O DHARAM SINGH,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF CONTAINER
BEARING REGN. NO.HR.69.A.9446,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1034
MFA No. 200145 of 2020
R/O VPO BAZADPUR SABOLI,
SONEPAT, HARYANA-131 001.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
ASIAN ARCADE, S.B. TEMPLE ROAD,
NEAR ANAND HOTEL, KALABURAGI-585 102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADV. FOR R2;
V/O DTD. 12.01.2021, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND
ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION TO RS.15,00,000/- ALONG
WITH INTEREST BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
OF THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT
KALABURAGI, DATED 04.06.2019 IN MVC NO.708/2015.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI) This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 04.06.2019 passed in MVC No.708/2015 by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, -3- NC: 2025:KHC-K:1034 MFA No. 200145 of 2020 Kalaburagi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short).
2. The factual matrix of the case is as below:
On 01.12.2014, the deceased Sagar was travelling on a motorcycle bearing No.MH-13/VA-2478 as a pillion rider on Tuljapur-Solapur main road. At that time, a Container Truck bearing No.HR-69/A-9446 owned by respondent No.1 and insured by respondent No.2 in an effort to overtake another vehicle, touched the hind side of the motorcycle and as a result, the rider and the pillion rider fell down and sustained injuries. The deceased Sagar suffered head injury and died in the accident. Hence, contending that the deceased was aged 25 years and was earning Rs.25,000/- per month, the petitioners approached the Tribunal by filing a claim petition, seeking adequate compensation.
3. The claim petition was opposed by respondent No.2-Insurance Company contending that the compensation claimed is highly exorbitant, imaginary and -4- NC: 2025:KHC-K:1034 MFA No. 200145 of 2020 untenable and that the driver of the lorry was not having a valid driving licence and there was violation of terms and conditions of the policy. Interalia, they denied the age, occupation and income of the deceased. Respondent No.1- insured did not appear and as such, placed exparte.
4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed necessary issues for its consideration. Petitioner No.2 was examined as PW.1 and Exs.P1 to P10 were marked. The official of respondent No.2 was deposed as RW.1. However, no documentary evidence was adduced on their behalf.
5. After hearing the arguments by both the sides, the Tribunal by assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.8000/- per month and applying the multiplier of 18, has awarded a compensation of Rs.9,69,000/- to the petitioners under different heads and directed respondent No.2 to deposit the compensation amount, which is as below:
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1034 MFA No. 200145 of 2020
1. Love and affection Rs. 75,000/-
2. Funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000/- transportation charges
3. Loss of dependency Rs.8,64,000/-
4. Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-
Total compensation Rs.9,69,000/-
6. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the petitioners, who are the parents and sister of deceased Sagar have approached this Court, seeking enhancement of compensation contending that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and abysmally low.
7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the deceased Sagar was a holder of degree in Bachelor of Engineering, in the branch of Computer Science and had passed with distinction from Solapur University. In support of such contention, they have also produced the relevant certificates at Ex.P6. It is -6- NC: 2025:KHC-K:1034 MFA No. 200145 of 2020 submitted that the Tribunal has not considered the future prospects while calculating the compensation under the head of loss of dependency and the Tribunal should have taken the income of the deceased at higher level, since he was an Engineering graduate with distinction. Learned counsel for the appellants fairly submits that though it was contended by the petitioners that the deceased was employed, they could not secure the necessary documents to show that he was employed and was earning Rs.25,000/- per month.
9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 contended that the Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased in a proper way and such income assessed by the Tribunal is slightly higher than the normal income, which is normally considered by the Tribunals. It is submitted that, the Tribunal has rightly determined the compensation and therefore, no indulgence is required in the same. -7-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1034 MFA No. 200145 of 2020
10. Though a feeble contention is raised by the Insurance Company that the driver of the container truck was not having a valid driving licence, there being absolutely no material on record, the same deserves to be rejected. It is also submitted that the case is of composite negligence, but not a contributory negligence and on this ground also, the Insurance Company would be liable.
11. A perusal of the records would show that the deceased had passed the degree of Bachelor of Engineering in first class with distinction during March, 2014. The marks cards show that, all along he was a bright student. This aspect definitely heavily tilt in favour of the appellants. It may not be proper to hold that an Engineering student with first class distinction, who had passed out in the year 2014 was having only an income of Rs.8,000/- per month as on the date of the accident i.e., 01.12.2014. Though such an argument of income of Rs.8,000/- per month may hold good for the present times, it was not the situation in the year 2014. Under -8- NC: 2025:KHC-K:1034 MFA No. 200145 of 2020 these circumstances, a fresher from the college with distinction could have easily employed in any industry and therefore, a moderate income of the deceased should be taken at Rs.12,000/- per month.
12. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others1 future prospects has to be added to the same. If 40% (Rs.4,800/-) of a sum of Rs.12,000/- is added, the total income would be Rs.16,800/- per month.
13. The Tribunal has considered the Multiplier of 18 based on the age of the deceased as 25 years and deducted 50% of the income towards his personal expenses, since he was a bachelor. Therefore, the said multiplier and deduction towards personal expenses appear to be correct and there is no dispute in respect of the same.
1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 -9- NC: 2025:KHC-K:1034 MFA No. 200145 of 2020
14. Hence, the loss of dependency is calculated as:
Rs.16,800/- x 12 x 18 x 50% = 18,14,400/-.
15. In addition to the above compensation amount, the appellants are also entitled for a sum of Rs.52,000/- under head of loss of love and affection, Rs.19,500/- under the head of loss of estate and Rs.19,500/- under the head of funeral expenses, after giving escalation of 10% per three years subsequent to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi supra.
16. Under these circumstances, the compensation is re-assessed by this Court and the petitioners are entitled for the modified compensation under different heads as below:
1. Loss of dependency Rs.18,14,400/-
2. Loss of love and affection Rs. 52,000/-
3. Loss of estate Rs. 19,500/-
4. Funeral expenses Rs. 19,500/-
Total Rs.19,05,400/-
Less: awarded by Tribunal Rs. 9,69,000/-
Enhancement Rs. 9,36,400/-
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1034
MFA No. 200145 of 2020
17. In that view of the matter, the appeal deserves to be allowed in part. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified by awarding a compensation of Rs.9,36,400/- in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its deposit.
(iii) Respondent No.2-Insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of six weeks from the date of this order.
(iv) Rest of the order of the Tribunal stands unaltered.
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI) JUDGE LG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 72