Karnataka High Court
Smt. Gouramma W/O Late Hanmantappa vs A.V.V.Bhadra Rao on 6 April, 2018
Bench: A.S.Bopanna, R.Devdas
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL 2018
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.S.BOPANNA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.202156/2014
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.200540/2015 (MV)
IN MFA NO.202156/2014
BETWEEN:
1. Smt. Gouramma W/o Late Hanmanta
Age: 42 years, Occ: Household
2. Rekha D/o Late Hanmanta
Age: 30 years, Occ: Household
3. Mahesh S/o Late Hanmanta
Age: 26 years, Occ: Student
4. Kalawati D/o Late Hanmanta
Age: 22 years, Occ: Student
5. Umesh S/o Late Hanmanta
Age: 20 years, Occ: Student
6. Rakesh S/o Late Hanmanta
Age: 16 years, Occ: Student
Minor U/G of Claimant No.1 being mother
All R/o Kamalapur
Tq. Dist. Gulbarga
... Appellants
(By Sri S.S. Sajjanshetty, Advocate)
2
AND:
1. A.V.V.Bhadra Rao
Age: Major, Occ: Owner of Maruti Swift
Car bearing Regn. No.AP-29/BF-5028
R/o North Hasingapuram Colony
Sagar Road, Dist. Ranga Reddy - 500 078
(Andra Pradesh-State)
2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Through its Divisional Manager
4th floor, V.A. Kalburgi Mansion
Lamington Road
Opp: Municipal Corporation, Hubli
Tq. Hubli, Dist. Dharwad
3 Ramesh S/o Late Hanmanta
Age: 28 years, Occ: now Govt. Service
R/o Kamalapur, Tq. Dist. Gulbarga
... Respondents
(Sri Sanjay M. Joshi, Advocate for R2;
Notice to R1 is dispensed with V/O Dtd. 03.12.2015;
Notice to R3 is dispensed with V/O Dtd. 24.11.2015)
This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, against the Judgment and Award dated
24.11.2014 passed in MVC No.597/2012 on the file of the III
Addl. Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Gulbarga, partly allowing
the claim petition and seeking enhancement of
compensation.
IN MFA NO.200540/2015
BETWEEN:
The Divisional Manager
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.
Through its Manager
V.A. Kalburagi Mansion, 4th Floor
Opp: Municipal Corporation
Lamington Road, Hubli
... Appellant
(By Sri Sanjay M. Joshi, Advocate)
3
AND:
1. Smt. Gouramma W/o Late Hanmanta
Age: 43 years, Occ: House hold
2. Rekha D/o Late Hanamanta
Age: 32 years, Occ: Household
3. Ramesh S/o Late Hanamanta
Age: 30 years, Occ: Student
4. Mahesh S/o Late Hanamanta
Age: 28 years, Occ: Student
5. Kalavati D/o Late Hanmanta
Age: 24 years, Occ: Student
6. Umesh S/o Late Hanamanta
Age: 22 years, Occ: Student
7. Rakesh S/o Late Hanamanta
Age: 18 years, Monor
Occ: Student
(All R/o Kamalapur
Tq. & Dist. Gulbarga)
8. A.V.V.Bhadra Rao
Age: Major
Occ: Owner of the Maruti Swift Car
Bearing registration No.AP-29/BF-5028
R/o North Hasinapuram Colony
Sagar Road, Ranganna Reddy District - 500 078
Andra Pradesh
... Respondents
(Sri S.S. Sajjanshetty, Advocate for R1 to R7;
Notice to R8 is dispensed with V/O Dtd. 17.02.2016)
This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, praying to call for the records, allow the appeal
and set aside the impugned judgment and award dated
24.11.2014 in MVC No.597/2012 passed by Court of the III
Addl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Gulbarga awarding
4
compensation of Rs.28,98,301/- insofar as the liability is
saddled upon the appellant insurance company; and to
reduce the same in case liability is saddled upon the
appellant insurance company.
These appeals coming on for final hearing this day,
A.S.BOPANNA J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
The claimants are before this Court in MFA No.202156/2014, seeking enhancement of the compensation as against the sum awarded in MVC No.597/2012 dated 24.11.2014. The very judgment passed by the MACT is assailed by the insurance company in MFA No.200540/2015. In that view, both these appeals are taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Insofar as the accident having occurred on 06.03.2012 and the husband of the first claimant having died in the said accident, there is no serious dispute. However, with regard to the finding returned by the Tribunal with regard to the negligence and the manner of computation of the compensation under the head "loss of dependency" the insurance company has assailed the judgment. Insofar as the computation of 5 the compensation, the contention on behalf of the insurance company is that the Tribunal keeping in view the short left over tenure of service ought to have applied the split multiplier and the compensation should have thereafter been considered. On the said aspect of the matter, a detail consideration at this point would not be necessary, since the said issue is no more res integra, inasmuch as the Hon'ble Supreme Court through its subsequent decision in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (2017 SCC OnLine SC 1270) has indicated the manner of computation of compensation. Hence, the contention of the insurance company on that aspect in their appeal is liable to be rejected at the outset. Insofar as the contention urged in their appeal with regard to the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the aspect of negligence, it is noticed that except examining an officer as RW.1, no other witnesses to speak about the accident has been examined by them. If that be the position, the finding recorded by the Tribunal based on the evidence tendered by the claimant as PW.1 and the 6 documents relied on, more particularly, the records relating to the investigation of the accident would by itself indicate the negligence due to which the accident has occurred. Hence, the contention in that regard as raised in the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is also rejected.
3. Having arrived at the above conclusion, the only aspect which requires consideration is with regard to the prayer of the appellants in MFA No.202156/2014, whereunder they seek enhancement of compensation. In that regard, a perusal of the finding rendered by the Tribunal would indicate that the Tribunal having taken into consideration the fact that the deceased was working as a Lineman in GESCOM has taken into consideration the salary certificate which was marked at Ex.P12. The gross salary indicated therein is at Rs.48,677/-. From the said amount the tax payable by way of income tax and professional tax was the only amount, which is required to be deducted and thereafter the future prospects at 15% is to be awarded 7 keeping in view the age of the deceased. If the same is done, the amount to be deducted towards tax would be in a sum of Rs.10,700/-. Therefore, the net salary would work out to Rs.37,977/-. 15% of the amount to be added for future prospects will be in a sum of Rs.5,697/-. Hence, the salary to be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the loss of dependency would be in a sum of Rs.43,674/-. From the said amount, after deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased, if the compensation is calculated by applying the other parameters as applied by the Tribunal, the total compensation towards loss of dependency would be in a sum of Rs.35,37,594/-. Since the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,90,380/-, the appellant-claimants would be entitled to the difference of Rs.9,47,214/-. The amount awarded towards the conventional heads is on the lower side and as such a further sum of Rs.35,000/- is awarded. Hence, the appellants in MFA No.202156/2014 would be entitled to the total 8 enhanced amount of Rs.9,82,214/- with interest at the same rate awarded by the Tribunal.
The apportionment of the amount would be in the same proportion as was ordered by the Tribunal.
The enhanced amount shall be deposited by the insurance company within six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.
On deposit, the apportioned amount insofar as the appellants 1 to 4 shall be released to them and the amount apportioned to the appellants 5 and 6 shall be kept in Fixed Deposit for a period of three years.
Both the appeals stand disposed of in the above terms.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE LG