Karnataka High Court
Smt.Neeta W/O. Kallappa Kadolkar vs The Divisional Manager, on 5 June, 2013
Bench: N.K.Patil, B.Manohar
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2013
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.PATIL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.MANOHAR
M.F.A. NO. 21286/2012 (MV) C/W
M.F.A. NO.21290/2012 (MV)
IN M.F.A. NO.21286/2012
BETWEEN:
1. Smt. Neeta w/o Kallappa Kadolkar,
Age: 26 years, Occ.: Household.
2. Kum. Aditi d/o Kallappa Kadolkar,
Age: 12 years, Occ.: Nil, Since minor
represented by Natural guardian
mother Appellant no.1.
3. Shri Gunavant Tatoba Kadolkar,
Age: 61 years, Occ.: Nil.
4. Sou Sugandha Gunavant Kadolkar,
Age: 53 years, Occ.: Nil,
All are r/o Maratha Colony,
Kangrail B.K, Tal & Dist: Belgaum.
- Appellants
(By Shri Vitthal S. Teli, Advocate)
AND:
The Divisional Manager,
M.S.R.T.C, Kolhapur Division,
Kolhapur, State: Maharashtra.
- Respondent
(By Sri C.V. Angadi, Advocate)
:2:
This appeal is filed u/S 173(1) of M.V. Act, 1988,
against the judgment and award dated 06.02.2012 passed in
M.V.C. No.1991/2011 on the file of the Fast Track Court-III
& Member, Addl. MACT, Belgaum, partly allowing the claim
petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of
compensation.
IN M.F.A. NO.21290/2012
BETWEEN:
1. Smt. Savita w/o Vijay Kadolkar,
Age: 31 years, Occ.: Household.
2. Kumari Sakshi D/o Vijay Kadolkar,
Age: 7 years, Occ.: Nil.
3. Kumari Karuna d/o Vijay Kadolkar,
Age; 5 years, Occ.: Nil.
4. Kumar Ganesh s/o Vijay Kadolkar,
Age: 16 years, Occ.: Nil.
Since appellant Nos.2 to 4 are minor
Represented by natural guardian
Mother appellant no.1.
5. Smt. Mallawwa w/o: Kallappa Kadolkar,
Age: 66 years, Occ: Nil, all are
R/o Maratha Colony, Kangrali B.K,
Tal & Dist: Belgaum.
- Appellants
(By Shri Vitthal S. Teli, Advocate)
AND:
The Divisional Manager,
M.S.R.T.C, Kolhapur Division,
Kolhapur, State: Maharashtra.
- Respondent
(By Sri C.V. Angadi, Advocate)
:3:
This appeal is filed u/S 173(1) of M.V. Act, 1988,
against the judgment and award dated 06.02.2012 passed in
M.V.C. No.1582/2011 on the file of the Fast Track Court-III
& Member, Addl. MACT, Belgaum, partly allowing the claim
petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of
compensation.
These appeals coming on for admission this day,
N.K.PATIL J., delivered the following: -
JUDGMENT
These two appeals by the claimants are directed against the impugned common judgment and award dated 06.12.2012 passed in M.V.C. No.1991/2011 & M.V.C. No.1582/2012 on the file of the Member, Addl. M.A.C.T., & Presiding Officer, FTC-III, Belgaum. The Tribunal by its impugned common judgment and award awarded a sum of Rs.7,68,000/- and Rs.7,88,000/- respectively, with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation, on account of the death of the deceased persons in the road traffic accident. On the ground that the quantum of compensation awarded in both the cases is inadequate and requires enhancement, appellants in both the cases have presented these appeals.
:4:
2. The appellants in these cases are the claimants. They have filed claim petitions under Section 166 of M.V. Act claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- and Rs.20,00,000/- respectively with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation contending that, the claimants in M.F.A. No.21286/2012 are the wife, minor child and parents of the deceased-Kallappa Kadolkar and the claimants in M.F.A. No.21290/2012 are the wife, 3 minor children and mother of the deceased-Vijay Kadolkar. Both were aged about 34 years and skilled carpenters by profession, particularly, carving carpentry, the deceased persons were the only earning members in their family and both were hale and healthy prior to the accident that occurred on 22.03.2011 and due to the rash and negligent driving of bus, they sustained grievous injuries and thereafter succumbed to the injuries. Therefore, the claimants/ appellants herein were constrained to file claim petitions claiming compensation against the respondent-Corporation. The matter had come up for :5: consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after critical evaluation of the entire oral and documentary evidence available on record, taking into consideration the age, avocation, number of dependents, assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month, deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses, applied the multiplier of 16 and awarded Rs.6,48,000/- towards loss of dependency and Rs.1,20,000/- towards conventional heads and Rs.7,88,000/- in M.V.C. No.1582/2011 respectively with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, the claimants felt necessitated to present these appeals seeking enhancement of compensation.
3. Submission of the learned counsel appearing for the claimants Sri Vitthal S. Teli, at the outset, is that, the Tribunal has erred in taking the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month, which is on the lower side. The deceased persons were the skilled carpenters and were hale and healthy at the time of :6: accident. The accident is of the year 2011. The Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the age and avocation of the deceased. They were spending all the income for the welfare of the family and due to the untimely death of the deceased, the claimants have lost their care taker. This aspect of the matter has not been looked into nor considered or appreciated by the Tribunal. Therefore, he submitted that income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month be taken. Therefore, learned counsel submitted, the impugned common judgment and award is liable to be modified by enhancing a reasonable compensation.
4. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation, Sri C.V. Angadi, at the outset, submitted that Tribunal after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence and other relevant material on record, taking the age and avocation of the deceased, number of dependents in the family, assessed just and reasonable income of Rs.4,500/- per month, and awarded reasonable compensation. He further :7: submitted that, in fact the amount awarded under conventional heads is very much on the higher side and liable to be reduced by taking judicial note of the same.
5. After careful consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perusal of the impugned common judgment and award, and after evaluation of the records available on file, the only point that arises in both the appeals for our consideration is:
Whether the quantum of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is just and
reasonable?
6. The undisputed facts of the case are that, the occurrence of the accident and the resultant death due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus. Further, it is not in dispute that the deceased persons were aged 34 years doing skilled carpentry work and were the only earning members in their family, and that the claimants are none other than the wife, minor children and parents of the deceased. The accident has occurred on :8: 22.03.2011. The Tribunal ought to have taken judicial note of the year of accident and assessed reasonable income of the deceased and the Tribunal has erred in not assessing the reasonable income. Therefore, we take judicial note of the same, avocation of carpentry, number of dependents in the family and assess the income of the deceased persons at Rs.6,000/- p.m. in both the cases, out of which, if 1/4th is deducted towards personal expenses, Rs.4,500/- would remain for the benefit of the family. The deceased persons were aged 34 years as on the date of the accident. The appropriate multiplier applicable is 16. Accordingly, we re-determine the loss of dependency at Rs.8,64,000/- (Rs.4,500/- x 12 x 16) in both the cases.
10. Having regard to the facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.45,000/- under conventional heads, i.e., loss of love and affection, loss of estate, loss of consortium and transportation and funeral expenses. The appellants in both the cases are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.9,09,000/- as :9: against Rs.7,68,000/- and the enhancement would be Rs.1,41,000/- in M.F.A. No.21286/2012 (M.V.C. No.1991/2011) and Rs.9,09,000/- as against Rs.7,88,000/- , the enhancement would be Rs.1,21,000/- in M.F.A. No.21290/2012 (MVC No.1582/2011), with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation.
The appeals filed by the appellants are allowed in part. Impugned common judgment and award passed by the Tribunal on 06.02.2011 in M.V.C. No.1991/2011 & MVC No.1582/2011 on the file of The P.O., F.T.C-III & Member, Addl. MACT, Belgaum, is hereby modified by awarding additional compensation of Rs.1,41,000/- and Rs.1,21,000/- respectively with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation.
The respondent-Corporation is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
: 10 :
Out of the enhanced compensation, in M.F.A. No.21286/2012, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the name of the appellant no.1 in any Nationalized Bank for a period of 10 years and renewable for another 10 years. She is entitled to withdraw the interest accrued on the deposit.
The Remaining amount of Rs.41,000/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the appellant nos.1, 2 and 3 in equal proportion immediately after deposit of the amount by the Corporation.
Out of the enhanced compensation, in M.F.A. No.21290/2012, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the name of the appellant no.1 in any Nationalized Bank for a period of 10 years and renewable for another 10 years. She is entitled to withdraw the interest accrued on the deposit. : 11 :
The Remaining amount of Rs.21,000/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the appellant nos.1 and 5 immediately after deposit of the amount by the Corporation.
Draw award accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE bvv