Karnataka High Court
Rajeswari And Anr vs Basavaraj And Anr on 28 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9013
MFA No. 201363 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
TH
R
DATED THIS THE 28 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201363 OF 2019 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. RAJESHWARI W/O SURESH,
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
2. SURESH S/O PARVATHAMMA,
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
BOTH R/O JAMBALADINNI VILLAGE,
TQ: MANVI, NOW R/O ASHRAYA COLONY,
RAICHUR-584101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SHARANAGOUDA V. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
RENUKA
Location: HIGH AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1. BASAVARAJ S/O NAGAPPA,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRIL., AND
OWNER OF TRACTOR BEARING NO.
KA-36/TP-7565, R/O A-35,
JAMBALADINNI VILLAGE,
TQ:MANVI, DIST: RAICHUR-584101.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
DO, NEAR GANDHI CHOWK, RAICHUR-584101.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9013
MFA No. 201363 of 2019
3. SHIVASHANKAR S/O NAGAPPA,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF PASSION
PROSECUTION MOTORCYCLE BEARING NO.
KA-36/EF-9853, R/O JAMBALADINNI,
TQ. MANVI, DIST. RAICHUR-584101.
4. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DO, NEAR GANDHI CHOWK,
RAICHUR-584101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
V/O DT.28.06.2023, NOTICE TO R1 & R3 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
173(1) MV ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY
MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.09.2017,
PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE
AND ADDL. MACT AT RAICHUR, IN MVC NO.119/2017 AND
PLEASED TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION OF RS.5,00,000/-
TO RS.14,50,000/-.
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) This appeal is by the appellants/claimants questioning quantum as well as negligence of 25% -3- NC: 2024:KHC-K:9013 MFA No. 201363 of 2019 fastened on the rider of the bike on which minor was proceeding as a pillion rider.
2. The claimants have filed a claim petition for having lost a minor son aged about 4 years in a road traffic accident dated 16.12.2016. The Tribunal having answered issue No.1 in the affirmative, has awarded compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- by fixing liability at 25% on the rider of the bike.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has placed reliance on a reported judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Lakshminarayanappa @ Moogappa and others Vs. M/s Royal Sundaram Allianz Ins. Co. Ltd.1
4. The insurance company has tried to counter the reported judgment rendered by the Coordinate Bench by 1 MFA No.11440/2011 C/w MFA No.206/2018 D.D.12.09.2024 -4- NC: 2024:KHC-K:9013 MFA No. 201363 of 2019 citing a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Meena Devi vs. Nunu Chand Mahto2.
5. This Court has given its anxious consideration to the principles laid down by the Apex Court while examining compensation payable in case of a death of a minor child aged 12 years. The Apex Court citing the law laid down in the case of Kurvan Ansari vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu3 as well as Kishan Gopal vs. Lala and Others4, proceeded to assess the income of the deceased notionally at Rs.30,000/- per annum so as to determine the compensation. With great respect, this Court is of the view that the Apex Court bearing in mind the death of a minor boy aged 12 years, has adopted a fictional method in assessing the income notionally citing two previous judgments of the Apex Court.
6. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the reported judgment has not adverted to one age group of 2 (2023) 1 SCC 204 3 (2022) 1 SCC 317 4 (2014) 1 SCC 244 -5- NC: 2024:KHC-K:9013 MFA No. 201363 of 2019 minors. The learned Single Judge has taken pain in adverting to the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in case of minor deaths under the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned Single Judge has taken cognizance right from the judgment rendered by Bombay High Court in the case of Mehboobkhan vs. Babarkhan5 relating to obligation of a Hindu to maintain his or her aged and infirm parents to the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Lata Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar6.
7. The learned Single Judge has also exhaustively dealt with the provisions of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') and inaction on the part of Central Government in not implementing the directives issued by the Apex Court in the case of Puttamma vs. K.L.Narayana Reddy7 relating to Second Schedule, which was enacted under Act 54 of 1994 with effect from 14.11.1994. Learned Single Judge has further 5 2023 SCC OnLine Bom.1158 6 (2001) 8 SCC 197 7 (2013) 15 SCC 45 -6- NC: 2024:KHC-K:9013 MFA No. 201363 of 2019 adverted to the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of in Puttamma's case (supra). The learned Single Judge in the above land mark judgment recording inflation for every year from 1994 has by way of legal fiction prepared exhaustive tables recording inflation in percentage right from 1994 to 2024 .
8. The judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge, as exhaustively discussed, reflects a comprehensive and practical approach to addressing the provisions of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Single Judge has meticulously analyzed the inaction on the part of the Central Government in implementing the directives issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Puttamma vs. K.L. Narayana Reddy (supra), which pertain to the Second Schedule enacted under Act 54 of 1994, effective from 14.11.1994. Furthermore, the Single Judge has critically examined the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the same case and has extended their applicability to the present scenario by -7- NC: 2024:KHC-K:9013 MFA No. 201363 of 2019 formulating a detailed methodology to determine compensation in cases involving the death of minors in road traffic accidents.
9. This landmark judgment by the Single Judge of this court is a pioneering decision as it introduces a fictional yet systematic approach to account for inflation rates from 1994 to 2024. By preparing exhaustive tables that provide inflation-adjusted compensations, the learned Judge has addressed the lacuna left by the non-revision of the Second Schedule. These tables not only cover a wide spectrum of scenarios, including minors under 15 years and those above 15 but below 18 years, but also differentiates between situations involving single parents and both parents. The methodology adopted is inclusive and ensures a fair, just, and proportionate assessment of compensation for families who lose their minor children in accidents. This thoughtful and innovative approach offers solace to the bereaved families, acknowledging that the loss of a child cannot be quantified in monetary terms but -8- NC: 2024:KHC-K:9013 MFA No. 201363 of 2019 ensuring that financial relief is commensurate with contemporary economic realities.
10. Given this, this Court finds itself compelled to follow the methodology adopted by the learned Single Judge in the reported judgment rather than the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Meena Devi vs. Nunu Chand Mahto case (supra). While the judgment of the Apex Court commands the highest respect, the facts and circumstances of the present case align more closely with the pragmatic framework devised by the Coordinate Bench. The fictional fixation of compensation by the learned Single Judge is rooted in a conscientious and responsible effort to address the real- world implications of inflation and evolving economic conditions, making it a more applicable and relevant precedent for cases under similar circumstances.
11. Thus, with profound respect for the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court concludes that the reported judgment of the learned Single Judge offers a more -9- NC: 2024:KHC-K:9013 MFA No. 201363 of 2019 practical and context-specific solution to the issue at hand. The methodology adopted therein not only sets a benchmark for assessing compensation but also exemplifies judicial innovation in addressing gaps within the legislative framework. Consequently, the Court finds it imperative to rely on the reported judgment to ensure equitable justice in the present matter. Finding on quantum
12. In the case on hand, both the parents have filed a claim petition for having lost a minor child aged four years. The relevant table applicable to the present case on hand is 3.2. The accident is of the year 2016 and therefore, compensation payable in the case on hand is Rs.12,91,787/- as against Rs.5,00,000/- determined by the Tribunal.
Finding on negligence
13. The Tribunal placing reliance on the charge sheet materials, more particularly, the spot mahazar
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9013 MFA No. 201363 of 2019 evidenced at Ex.P3, has come to the conclusion that rider of the bike and the driver of the offending tractor both have contributed to the negligence. Therefore, negligence is apportioned in the ratio of 75:25.
14. This Court has independently reviewed the charge sheet materials to ascertain as to whether rider of the bike has contributed to the negligence. Merely because charge sheet is filed against the rider as well as the driver of the offending tractor, that in itself will not give rise to inference that the rider of the bike was also negligent and caused the accident. The primary document to assess as to whether rider was also negligent has to be looked into. In the case on hand, it is the spot mahazar evidenced at Ex.P3, which is the crucial document. Though Trial Court records are not secured by the Registry, learned counsel appearing for the claimants and insurance company have placed on record the certified copy of the charge sheet materials. If the spot mahazar is looked into, this Court has no hesitation to hold that it is
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9013 MFA No. 201363 of 2019 the driver of the tractor, who lost control and came on the extreme right side from the opposite direction. The rider of the bike is infact found on the extreme left side of the road. What needs to be looked into is that the spot where the accident has taken place is slightly curved. It appears that the driver of the tractor at the spot where the collision has occurred has probably lost control and has gone on the extreme side of the road and thereby giving no space for the rider of the bike who was proceeding in the opposite direction. The driver of the tractor has virtually blocked the road. Therefore, merely because there was collision, the contributory negligence cannot be examined in the case on hand as the driver of the offending tractor was not only reckless but has come on the extreme right side and is solely responsible for the accident. These finer details are not at all looked into by the Tribunal .By taking a holistic view and on presumption that since rider of the bike is also charge sheeted, has proceeded to fix negligence on both the vehicles. This finding is perverse and same warrants reversal at the hands of this Court.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9013 MFA No. 201363 of 2019 Accordingly, negligence attributed on the rider of the bike is hereby reversed and set aside.
15. For the foregoing reasons, this Court passes the following:
ORDER
a) Appeal is allowed in part.
b) The appellants are entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.7,91,787/- with 6% interest from the date of claim petition till its realization.
c) Since entire negligence is fixed on the driver of the offending tractor, respondent No.2 - insurance company shall satisfy the entire compensation.
d) The apportionment shall be made as per the order of the Tribunal.
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9013 MFA No. 201363 of 2019
e) Learned counsel for respondent No.2 is permitted to file vakalath within three weeks.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE RSP/Srt List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6, CT-SW