Karnataka High Court
Sri. Channabasappa vs Sri. Surendrareddy on 26 August, 2022
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2839/2016 (MV)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6177/2016 (MV)
IN MFA NO.2839/2016
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. CHANNABASAPPA
S/O. BASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
OCC: COOLIE.
2. SMT. MANJUAMMA
W/O. CHANNABASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
OCC: COOLIE.
3. SRI. BASAVARAJU
S/O. CHANNABASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/O SADARAHALLI VILLAGE,
CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SIDDAPPA B.M., ADVOCATE )
AND:
1. SRI. SURENDRAREDDY
S/O. K. NARASIMHA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
OWNER OF THE LORRY BEARING
2
NO.AP-13/W-6283, H.NO. 30-78, S.G. ROAD,
JODEHERLA, MAHABOOBANAGAR
DISTRICT, A.P. STATE-509339
2. THE MANAGER
SRI RAMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
E-8, EPP, INDUSTRIAL AREA,
SITAPURA, JAIPUR,
RAJASTHAN-303 022.
3. M/S MEHATA FROZEN ROAD CARRIERS,PVT LTD
NO.369, J.P. NAGAR, 9TH PHASE, KANAKAPURA
MAIN ROAD, AVALAHALLI OPPOSITE OLD
GANESH BAKERY, ANJANAPURA POST,
BENGALURU-560108
(RC OWNER OF VEHICLE BEARING
REG. NO KA-05-AB-6108)
4. THE MANAGER
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD.,
LOMBORD HOUSE, 414, VEERAAVARKAR MARG,
NEAR SIDDIVINAYAKA TEMPLE, PRABHADEVI,
MUMBAI-400025.
POLICY COVER NOTE. 10696231 VALID FROM
22-04-2012 50 21-4-2014
... RESPONDENTS
(R1 AND R3 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH V/O
DATED 21.11.2017 IN MFA 6177/2016)
(BY SRI.B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2
SRI. H.N. KESHAVA PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS M.F.A IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.12.2015
PASSED IN MVC NO.161/14 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, C.J.M. & MACT-III,
CHITRADURGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION
FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
3
IN MFA NO.6177/2016
BETWEEN:
THE LEGAL MANAGER
SHRI RAM GIC LTD
E-8, EPIP, INDUSTRIAL AREA, SITAPURA,
JAIPURA, RAJASTAN - 302022
NOW REP BY THE LEGAL MANAGER,
LEGAL MANAGER,
SHRIRAM GENERAL INS. CO. LTD.
NO 5/4, 3RD FLOOR,
S. V. ARCADE BELEKALHALLI
MAIN ROAD, OPP BANNERGHATTA ROAD
LIMB POST, BANGALORE - 76
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE )
AND:
1. CHANNABASAPPA
S/O BASAPPA
NOW AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
2. MANJAMMA
W/O CHANNABASAPPA
NOW AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
3. C. BASAVARAJU
S/O CHANNABASAPPA
NOW AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT SADARAHALLI VILLAGE
CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTIRCT - 19
4. K. SURENDRAREDDY
S/O NARASIMHAREDDY
NO.40 YEARS, H. NO. 30-78
S G ROAD, JODEHERLA
MAHABOOBNAGAR DISTRICT
ANDRA PRADESH STATE - 05
4
5. M/S MEHATA FROZEN ROAD CARRIERS PVT. LTD.
NO. 369, J. P. NAGAR
9TH PHASE, KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD,
AVALAHALLI, OPPOSITE OLD GANESH BAKERY
ANJANAPURA POST,
BANGALORE - 560051.
6. THE MANAGER
ICICI LOMBARD GIC LTD
H. NO. 414, VEERASAVARKAR MARG
NEAR SIDDIVINAYAKA TEMPLE
PRABHADEVI
MUMBAI - 400025
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.M. SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3
R4 AND R5, NOTICE DISPENSED WITH V/O
DATED 21.11.2017
SRI. A.M. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R6)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.12.2015 PASSED
IN MVC NO.161/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CJM, MACT-3, CHITRADURGA,
AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.10,84,500/- WITH
INTEREST @ 7.5% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
5
JUDGMENT
The appeal in MFA No.2839/2016 is filed by the appellants-claimants, seeking enhancement of compensation and the appeal in MFA No.6177/2016 is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the liability on question of apportionment of negligence aspect and also being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded in MVC No.161/2014 dated 11.12.2015, on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, CJM and MACT-III, Chitradurga.
Brief facts:
2. That on 26.11.2013 the deceased C.Suresha and Venkatesha were proceeding in a Container Lorry bearing No.KA-05-AB-6108 from Hyderabad towards Bengaluru, near Nandigrama Village, on NH-44, at that point of time driver of above said vehicle dashed against the hind portion of the Lorry bearing No.AP-13-W-6283 and due that, the deceased Suresh had sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. It is stated that the 6 deceased was aged 26 years and earning Rs.10,000/- per month.
3. Hence, a claim petition was filed by the dependants-claimants under Section-166 of the M.V. Act, before the Tribunal claiming compensation. The Tribunal on appreciating the materials on record, allowed the petition in part, and awarded a compensation of Rs.10,84,500/- along with interest at 7.5% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The Tribunal held respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
4. Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on lesser side by holding monthly income of Rs.6,500/-
only, but ought to have given Rs.8,000/-. Therefore, prays for further compensation.
5. Further, submitted that the Tribunal has committed error by awarding compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of love and affection which is meager one, if it 7 is considered as loss of consortium. Therefore, prays for enhancement of compensation by allowing the appeal.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for insurance company in MFA No.6177/2016, appellant- Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., submitted that driver of the Lorry bearing No. KA-05-AB-6108 was rash and negligent in driving the Lorry, but, the Tribunal has not appreciated evidence on negligence properly and fixing the entire negligence and rashness on the driver of the Lorry bearing No. AP-13-W-6283 is not correct. Therefore, submitted that both the Lorry drivers are equally responsible to the mishap to 50:50. Hence, prays to modification of the judgment and award in this regard.
7. Further it is submitted that the Tribunal has held adding 50% of income towards loss of future prospects but it ought to be 40% as per judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi case. Therefore, prays to reduce the sum and allow the appeal filed by the Insurance Company.
8Regarding rashness and negligence aspect:-
8. It is the case of the claimants that on 26.11.2013 the deceased Suresh and Venkatesh were going in the Lorry No.KA-05-AB-6108 coming from Hyderabad towards Bengaluru and when the said Lorry reached near Nandigrama village on NH-4, at about 5.30 p.m. and at that point of time another Lorry bearing No. AP-13-W-6283 was going ahead of the Lorry in which the claimant was proceeding and the driver of the Lorry bearing No. AP-13-W-6283 suddenly stopped the said Lorry on the main road and due to that the Lorry No.KA- 05-AB-6108 dashed the hind portion of the Lorry bearing No.AP-13-W-6283 and due to the said accident the deceased had sustained severe injuries and succumbed to the injuries at CHC Shadnagar. Therefore, it is contended by the Insurance company that the Lorry driver KA-05-AB- 6108 was also rash and negligent in causing the accident. But on perusal of the evidence on record in the complaint Ex.P.1, the entire allegation is made against the driver of the Lorry No. AP-13-W-6283. Accordingly, FIR was 9 registered as against the driver of the Lorry bearing No. AP-13-W-6283. Ex.P6- charge sheet shows that the driver of Lorry bearing No. AP-13-W-6283 was charge sheeted. The Investigating Officer had come to conclusion that the driver of the Lorry bearing No.AP-13-W-6283 had suddenly stopped the Lorry on the middle of the road which is a National Highway, since the Lorry in which the deceased was traveling could not control the same and hit the hind portion of the Lorry bearing No. AP-13-W-6283.
9. This Court also perused all the evidence including Ex.R-3 crime detail form which clearly proves that the accident was occurred on the middle of the road on National Highway road. The driver of the Lorry bearing No. AP-13-W-6283 had suddenly stopped the Lorry, due to that Lorry bearing No.KA-05-AB-6108 could not be controlled by the driver due to sudden stoppage. Hence, it was forced to make impact on hind portion of the Lorry bearing No.AP-13-W-6283. In this regard, the entire rashness and negligence is attributed on the part of the driver of Lorry bearing No.AP-13-W-6283. 10
10. The accident occurred on a National highway, normally, the vehicles are going on a faster way and the vehicle which is behind the ongoing vehicles could not anticipate such sudden stoppage of any vehicle, which is going ahead of that vehicle and the same is happened in the present case also. Therefore, it is the duty caused on the driver of the Lorry bearing No.AP-13-W-6283, that if he could stop the vehicle, but that is only by giving proper signals by driving at the left side of the road, in order not to cause any obstructions to other passerby vehicles. But this precaution is not taken by the driver of the Lorry bearing No.AP-13-W-6283. Therefore, he can be alone responsible for the cause of the accident and it is rightly observed by the Tribunal. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the contention of the Insurance company to make apportionment regarding rashness and negligence. Therefore, in this regard the finding given by the Tribunal is correct.
11Regarding quantum
11. The Tribunal has held a sum of Rs.9,94,500/- towards loss of dependency by considering the income of Rs.6500/- per month and added 50% of the additional income by applying 17 multiplier according to the age of the deceased about 26 years, the above said compensation is awarded.
Ex-P12-salary certificate and Ex-P10 increment letter, which shows that the deceased was receiving a sum of 7,500/- per month as salary. But, even though the salary said to be 7,500/- per month but, no person can maintain the livelihood with such an amount. Therefore, as per Karnataka State Legal Service Authority chart of notional income for every year and according to the year 2013 in which the accident had occurred, the notional income recognized is Rs.8,000/- per month. Therefore, this Rs.8,000/- is the minimum income to be earned so as to maintain a family and for himself and this should be taken into consideration. Accordingly, the notional income Rs.8,000/- per month is held.
12
12. Deceased was aged about 26 years, hence the appropriate multiplier is 17. The deceased is bachelor, In view of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, 50% of the income is to be deducted towards his personal expenses. As per the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, loss of dependency to be re-calculated on the basis of considering the notional income at Rs.8,000/-. 40% of his monthly income is added towards 'Loss Of Future Prospects In Life', i.e., Rs.8000/- (Rs.8000 x 40%). Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased is taken at Rs.11,200/- (Rs.8,000+Rs.3,200). Hence, a sum of `11,42,400/- (8000+3200 (40%X8000) x 50% x 17x12) is awarded under this head.
13. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of affection. Loss of love and affection and loss of corsortium are one and the same as 13 per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in 'MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. NANU RAM & ORS.' (2018) 18 SCC 130, which has been subsequently clarified by the Supreme Court in 'UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. SATINDER KAUR AND ORS.' IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.2705/2020 decided on 30.06.2020. Therefore, each of the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- on account of loss of consortium and loss/love and affection. Accordingly Rs.1,20,000/- (40,000x3) is awarded towards loss of consortium.
The Tribunal has awarded 7.5% of interest and the same is reduced to 6% per annum.
14. Accordingly, the appellant/claimants are entitled for the following enhanced compensation under various heads as follows:
Sl. Amount
Particulars
No. in (Rs.)
1. Loss of dependency 11,42,400
2. Transportation and funeral expenses 40,000
Loss of consortium
3. 1,20,000
(40,000x3)
Total 13,02,400
14
15. The appellants-claimants are entitled for a total enhanced compensation of Rs.13,02,400/- as against Rs.10,84,500/- awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, the appellants are entitled for an additional Compensation of Rs.2,17,900/- (Rs.13,02,400-Rs.10,84,500), along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.
16. Accordingly, I pass the following ORDER i. The appeal filed by the claimants is allowed in part and the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is allowed in part.
ii. The judgment and award dated 11.12.2015, passed in MVC No.161/2014, on the file Principal Senior Civil Judge, C.J.M. & MACT-III is modified to the above extent.
iii. The appellants/claimants are entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.2,17,900/- (Rs.13,02,400 - Rs.10,84,500), along with 15 interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal.
iv. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay.
v. Draw the award accordingly.
vi. No order as to costs.
vii. Claimants in MFA No.2839/2016, are not
entitled for interest for the delayed period of 22 days in filing the appeal.
In view of the disposal of the main matter I.A.No.1/2021 and I.A.No.1/2022 are hereby disposed of as they do not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE SKS/GVP