Karnataka High Court
Sri Siddaiah S vs Govindaraj M on 5 March, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:9294-DB
MFA No. 5324/2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5324/2018 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI SIDDAIAH .S
S/O. LATE SIDDAIAH,
AGED 58 YEARS,
2. SMT. YASHODHA
W/O. BASAVARAJU K.B.
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT KENCHANNADODDI VILLAGE,
MALAVALLI TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 430.
Digitally signed by
MAHALAKSHMI B M
3. SRI RAVIKUMAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF S/O. SIDDAIAH,
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
APPELLANT NOS.1 & 3 ARE
R/AT BULLEKEMPANADODDI VILLAGE,
MALAVALLI TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571430.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. PADMAVATHI N., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:9294-DB
MFA No. 5324/2018
AND:
1. GOVINDARAJ .M
S/O. MANI,
AGED MAJOR,
R/AT NO.59, NAGIREDDI PALYAM,
NADU STREET, OLAGDAM,
BHAVANI TALUK, TAMILNADU - 638 301.
(OWNER OF THE CANTER
BEARING REG. NO.TN-36-AY-9034)
2. THE MANAGER
CHOLAMANDALAM,
M.S. GEN. INS. CO. LTD.,
CENTRE STREET, OLAGDAM,
BHAVANI, ERODE,
TAMILNADU - 638301.
(POLICY NO.3379/01081218/000/00
VALID FROM 26.08.2014 TO 25.08.2015)
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI LINGARAJ H.S., ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
R-1 - SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 27/04/2017, PASSED IN MVC NO.1025/2015,
ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT,
MALAVALLI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, K.S.HEMALEKHA J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:9294-DB
MFA No. 5324/2018
JUDGMENT
The claimants have preferred the present appeal assailing the judgment and award dated 27.04.2017, in MVC No.1025/2015 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Malavalli (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for the sake of convenience), whereby, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.6,69,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the ranking before the Tribunal.
3. Claimants filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- with interest on account of death of one Deveeramma, who succumbed to the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident that occurred on 08.07.2015, when the deceased was proceeding in TVS XL Super moped bearing registration No.KA-11-ED-7715 as a pillion rider, from Kiragavalu Santhemaidana towards her native, at about 10.45 p.m., one Canter bearing registration No.TN-36-AY- 9034 driven by its driver came in a rash and negligent -4- NC: 2024:KHC:9294-DB MFA No. 5324/2018 manner and dashed against the TVS Moped, due to which, she fell down and the wheel of the Canter ran over her. She died on spot.
4. Charge-sheet was laid against the driver of the Canter. The claimants are the husband and two children of the deceased. They claimed that the deceased was hale and healthy at the time of the accident and was doing agriculture and milk vending work, earning around Rs.10,000/- per month and at the time of the accident, the deceased was 50 years and that the claimants were dependent upon the deceased for their livelihood.
5. Pursuant to the notice issued by the Tribunal, respondent No.1-owner of the Canter remained absent and was placed exparte. Respondent No.2-insurer of the Canter appeared and filed written statement.
6. According to respondent No.2, the driver of the Canter was not holding valid and effective driving licence and further stated that the compensation claimed by the claimants is exorbitant.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:9294-DB MFA No. 5324/2018
7. In order to substantiate their claim, the son of the deceased examined himself as P.W.1 and two witnesses as P.W.2 and P.W.3 and got marked documents at Exs.P.1 to P.10. On the other hand, the insurer did not lead any evidence.
8. The Tribunal, on basis of the oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Canter bearing registration No.TN-36-AY-9034 and the deceased Deveeramma succumbed to the injuries due to the impact of the accident and thus, fastened the liability on the insurance company awarding compensation of Rs.6,69,000/- under the following heads:
1. Conveniences charges Rs.5,000-00
2. Funeral and Obsequies Rs.10,000-00
3. Loss of Love & Affection Rs.30,000-00
4. Loss of Estate Rs.6,24,000-00 -6- NC: 2024:KHC:9294-DB MFA No. 5324/2018
9. Heard Smt. Padmavathi .N, learned counsel for the claimants and Sri Lingraj H.S., learned counsel for respondent No.2-insurance company.
10. Respondent No.1 though served with the notice, has chosen to remain absent.
11. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants would contend that the deceased was doing agriculture and milk vending work and she was earning Rs.10,000/- per month as is evident from Ex.P.9 and P.10 and would contend that the Tribunal has lost sight of this fact and has awarded a sum of Rs.6,24,000/- under the head loss of estate by considering the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month, which is contrary to material on record. Learned counsel would contend that the claimants 2 and 3 have lost their mother who was bread earner of the family and the claimants were dependant upon the deceased for their livelihood. Learned counsel would contend that the award of compensation under the various heads is on the lower side and contrary to the settled proposition of law. -7-
NC: 2024:KHC:9294-DB MFA No. 5324/2018
12. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company would contend that the deceased was survived by her husband, a married daughter and major son and in light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of A. Manavalagan Vs. A. Krishnamurthy and Others1 the deceased could have only saved 50% and would have spent 50% towards her personal expenses and reduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses under the head loss of dependency by the Tribunal needs to be reassessed and just and fair compensation needs to be awarded.
13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the only point that arises for consideration is:
"Whether the compensation awarded under the impugned award is just one in the present facts and circumstances of the case?"
ANALYSIS
14. The time, date and occurrence of the accident is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the deceased Deveeramma succumbed to the injuries and the driver of the 1 ILR 2004 KAR 3268 -8- NC: 2024:KHC:9294-DB MFA No. 5324/2018 Canter was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle, as is evident from Ex.P.1 - the FIR and complaint, where the complaint was lodged against the driver of the offending vehicle for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304A of IPC. The Tribunal considering the material on record held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. No appeal is preferred by the insurance company. Thus, the only dispute is regarding the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
15. The material on record would indicate that the deceased was survived by her husband-claimant No.1, married daughter-claimant No.2 and major son-claimant No.3. The Tribunal, while assessing the loss of dependency, has deducted 1/3rd towards the personal expenses without considering that the deceased would have saved 50% on her personal expenses and by spending other 50% for family needs. Hence, under the head loss of estate, the compensation has to be reassessed.
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC:9294-DB MFA No. 5324/2018
16. The Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/-. The accident occurred in the year 2015. Considering the prevailing wage rates and cost of living in the year 2015 and age and occupation of the deceased, notional income to be taken at Rs.9,000/- per month. Taking the income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- adding 10% towards future prospects as held by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi2 the income of the deceased would come to Rs.9,900/- (9000 + 10% = 900). Deducting 50% towards personal expenses, the income comes to Rs.4,950/-. As the deceased was aged about 50 years, the applicable multiplier is 13 and the compensation payable under the head loss of estate is Rs.7,72,200/- (4,950 x 12 x 13).
17. The compensation under the other heads also needs to be reassessed in light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and 2 2017 (16) SCC 680
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9294-DB MFA No. 5324/2018 others3 (Satinder Kaur) and Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram & Others4 (Nanu Ram), the claimants are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each under the head loss of consortium, loss of estate Rs.15,000/- and funeral expenses at Rs.15,000/- with 10% escalation. Hence, the claimants are entitled for just and fair compensation as under:
Sl. Heads Rs.
No.
1. Loss of dependency 7,72,200
2. Loss of consortium 1,32,000
(44,000 x 3)
3. Loss of estate 16,500
4. Funeral and obsequies 16,500
Total 9,37,200
Awarded by the Tribunal 6,69,000
Enhancement compensation 2,68,200
18. The claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.9,37,200/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. as against Rs.6,69,000/-. The claimant is entitled to enhancement of compensation by Rs.2,68,200/-. The point framed for 3 AIR 2020 SC 3076 4 2018 ACJ 2782
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9294-DB MFA No. 5324/2018 consideration is answered accordingly. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal deserves to be allowed-in-part.
19. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is partly allowed.
(ii) The impugned award of the Tribunal is modified.
(iii) Compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced by Rs.2,68,200/- with interest thereon at 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization excluding 337 days i.e., the period of delay in filing the appeal.
(iv) Respondent No.2 shall deposit the enhanced compensation before the Tribunal within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
(v) Out of the enhanced compensation, claimant No.1 is entitled to 50%, claimant No.2 is entitled to 20% and claimant No.3 is entitled to 30% of the amount.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9294-DB MFA No. 5324/2018
(vi) The Tribunal shall release the said amount to claimant Nos.1 to 3 digitally on furnishing required documents.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40