Karnataka High Court
The Oriental Insurance Company ... vs Mahadevi W/O. Gurusiddayya Matapathi on 21 August, 2014
Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy, B.Manohar
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21 s t DAY OF AUGUST 2014
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.MANOHAR
M.F.A. No.100981 OF 2014 [MV]
BETWEEN:
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
VIKAS COMPLEX, STATION ROAD,
OPP: BHARAT WATCH CO., HUBLI,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY
MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED, II FLOOR,
SUMANGALA COMPLEX,
LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBLI
... APPELLANT
(By Sri. S K KAYAKAMATH ADV.)
AND:
1. MAHADEVI W/O. GURUSIDHAYYA MATAPATHI
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
R/O: D-3, K.U.QUARTERS,
KUD, DHARWAD
2. KUMAR BASAVACHETAN S/O G MATAPATI
AGE: 15 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: D-3, K.U.QUARTERS, KUD, DHARWAD
3. VISHWACHETAN S/O G MATAPATI
AGE: 13 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: D-3, K.U.QUARTERS, KUD, DHARWAD
:2:
(SINCE RESPONDENT Nos.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS
REPTD.BY N/G RESPONDENT NO.1/THEIR MOTHER
MAHADEVI W/O. GURUSIDHAYYA MATAPATHI)
4. SURESH G DHARWAD
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/O: ARATAL, POST: HOSUR,
TQ: SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI
5. SUBHASH S/O HONNAPPA KULKARNI
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/O: LAXMI NARAYAN TEMPLE, RAVIWAR PETH,
DHARWAD
6. CHANNABASAYYA S/O GURUSIDDAYYA MATHAPATI
AGE: 90 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O: BENNUR, TQ & DIST: DHARWAD
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. HEMANTH CHANDANGOUDAR &
SRI.SHARAD V. MAGADUM ADVs. FOR C/R1 TO R3)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT 1988,
AGAINST JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:31.12.2013,
PASSED IN MVC.NO.631/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE III
ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT.,
DHARWAD, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF
`46,32,100/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A.
FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF
DEPOSIT.
This appeal coming on for Admission this day,
Ram Mohan Reddy, J. delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
The insurer of the motor vehicle involved in the accident, aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 31.12.2013 in MVC No.631/2007 of :3: the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Dharwad, insofar as it relates to quantum of compensation, has preferred this appeal.
2. The facts briefly stated are:
A. One Gurusidhayya Matapati while riding the motor-cycle bearing registration No.KA-25/L- 8120 near U.B.Hills opposite Shrishail Sadan, on Head Post Office Road, Dharwad, another rider of the motor-cycle bearing registration No.KA-27/Q- 2640 coming from Hindi PracharSabha side towards Head Post Office, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motor-cycle and caused the accident, whence Gurusidhayya sustained grievous injuries and was admitted to Civil Hospital at Dharwad and later on, shifted to Shivakrupa Hospital, Hubli, where he succumbed to injuries. The widow and two minor children filed a claim petition under Section 161 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the MV Act') registered as MVC No.631/2007 on the file of III :4: Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl.MACT, Dharwad (for short 'the MACT'), claiming `1,00,00,000/- as compensation.
B. The MACT by judgment and award dated 19.12.2009 disposed of the claim petition and when challenged in MFA No.25335/2010 at the instance of the claimants, the appeal was disposed of remitting the proceeding to the MACT for reconsideration of the claim and also the applications in accordance with law, on merits, and to decide the compensation due to the claimants, in accordance with law, and in the event of award of enhanced compensation, then the claimants would be disentitled to interest for the delay period of 356 days.
C. On remand, the MACT, having regard to the material on record and on an assessment of the evidence, both oral and documentary, more particularly, absence of evidence by the insurer except for marking, by consent, the insurance :5: policy: Ex.R-1, awarded compensation of `75,000/-, each, towards loss of consortium; loss of love and affection and; loss to estate, while `25,000/- towards transportation charges and funeral expenses and `43,82,100/- towards loss of dependency, totaling to `46,32,100/- with interest at 6% per annum, by the judgment and award impugned.
3. This appeal by the insurer is restricted to the quantum of compensation under the conventional heads and loss of dependency, while the finding on the issue of actionable negligence is not in question.
4. Sri.S.K.Kayakmath, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the evidence of PW-1-- widow, discloses that she is gainfully employed as a Group 'D' employee in the service under the State, earning `6,000/- per month, hence, MACT ought to have deducted `6,000/- from the monthly income of the deceased.
:6:
5. This submission at the very outset deserves rejection, since in the written statement filed by the insurer, such a plea is not advanced and no evidence is tendered by the insurer that the money earned by PW-1 was ploughed into the income of the deceased for the benefit of the two minor children.
6. Yet again, the issues framed by the MACT are as under:-
(i) W hether the petitioners prove that the accident has taken place on 27.07.2007 at about 3.30 a.m., due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the TVS Star-city Co., motor cycle bearing No.KA-27/Q-2640, in the accident the husband of the petitioner sustained injuries and died?
(ii) W hether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, what amount and from whom?
(iii) W hat order or award?
7. A reading of the issues also does not disclose the disputed point on fact canvassed by :7: the insurer over the income of the widow being put to use for the family or that the income of the deceased was insufficient for the welfare and maintenance of the two minor children, much-less, the widow.
8. Regard being had to the fact elicited in cross-examination of PW-1 is that she is a group 'D' employee in the service under the State, earning `6,000/- per month as salary, while the deceased, a Librarian in Karnataka University, Dharwad, was drawing a salary of `22,203/- per month and pursuant to the revised pay-scale by Government Order dated 24.12.2009 was entitled to `31,080/- per month, w.e.f. 01.01.2006.
9. In the circumstances, it is not appropriate to hive off `6,000/- from out of the monthly income of the deceased. If the ethos and culture of this country, more appropriately, persons following Hinduism, father being the head of the family required to maintain his wife and children, :8: both legally and morally, an effort to hive off money equivalent to the income of the widow claimant from out of the income of the deceased husband, to disentitle the widow and minor children to that portion of the amount while calculating compensation for loss of dependency, in our considered opinion is unjust and uncharitable and will not represent just compensation.
10. Sri.S.K.Kayakmath, learned counsel makes reference to paragraphs 5 and 12 of the judgment in the case of U.P.STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND OTHERS VS. TRILOK CHANDRA AND OTHERS 1, on the topic of compensation for causing death by negligent driving, whence learned Judges of the Apex Court, made reference to GOBALD MOTOR SERVICES LIMITED AND ANOTHER vs. R.M.K. VELUSWAMI AND OTHERS 2, in which a reference was made to 1 (1996) 4 SCC 362 2 (1962) 1 SCR 929 :9: the House of Lords decision in DAVIES vs. POWELL DUFFRYN ASSOCIATED COLLIERIES LIMITED 3, as also the decision of the Apex Court in GENERAL MANAGER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT, TRIVANDRUM Vs. SUSAMMA THOMAS 4, relating to multiplier method for assessing the compensation. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the said judgments do not come to the aid of the appellant in support of the submission of hiving off `6,000/- from the monthly income of the deceased.
11. In RESHMA KUMARI AND OTHERS vs. MADAN MOHAN AND ANOTHER 5, over which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the appellant, the three Judges Bench of the Apex Court at paragraph No.40 concluded that in cases where the age of the deceased is 15 years and above, the multiplier to be selected is to be in accordance with column (4) of the table prepared 3 1942 Ac 601 4 AIR 1994 SC 1631 5 ( 2013 ) 9 SC 65 : 10 : in SARLA VERMA's case; while in case of deceased upto 15 years, irrespective of Section 166 or Section 163A of the MV Act, multiplier of '15' and the assessment as pointed out in column (6) of the table in SARLA VERMA's case should be followed, in addition to other columns; it was specifically pointed out to making addition to income for future prospects, as set out in paragraph No.24 of SARLA VERMA's case and that deduction for personal and living expenses, standards prescribed in paragraphs Nos.30, 31 and 32 of SARLA VERMA, however, subject to the observations made in paragraph No.38, was to be followed.
12. In neither of the aforesaid two judgments, there is an indication that where the widow is an earning member and the deceased has left behind minor children, the amount earned by the widow ought to be deducted from out of the earnings of the deceased while computing : 11 : compensation under the head of loss of dependency. We find no legal ground to interfere with the award of compensation under the head of loss of dependency by the MACT.
13. The next submission of Sri.S.K.Kayakmath, learned counsel, that the award of `2,50,000/- put together, under the conventional heads of loss of consortium, loss of love and affection and loss of estate, transportation charges and funeral expenses, is excessive, cannot be countenanced.
14. Regard being had to the young age at which the wife of the deceased became a widow, while two children being sons, aged 8 and 6 years respectively, have lost their father at a very tender age, lost his love and affection, we think that `75,000/- towards loss of consortium and loss of love and affection is too meager. : 12 :
15. Even assuming that `75,000/- towards loss of estate and `25,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses is slightly on the higher side, nevertheless, that would make up for the meager compensation under the head of loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. On that score too, we do not find any reasons to interfere with the award of the MACT. Appeal devoid of merit, is dismissed with cost.
The amount in deposit is directed to be forwarded to the MACT forthwith.
SD/-
JUDGE SD/-
JUDGE RK* Ct: Dk/-