Karnataka High Court
Sharawwa W/O Nagappa vs Director, Fire Service on 5 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9263
MFA No. 22853 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T. G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 22853 OF 2012 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SHARAWWA
W/O. NAGAPPA TIRAKANNAVAR ALIAS TIRKAPPAGOL,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE
R/O: KAKATI, TQ AND DIST: BELGAUM.
2. SRI. NAGAPPA
S/O. MALLAPPA TIRAKANNAVAR @ TIRKAPPAGOL
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KAKATI, TQ AND DIST: BELGAUM.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SANTOSH HATTIKATAGI FOR
SRI. SANTOSH B. RAWOOT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DIRECTOR, FIRE SERVICE
NO. 122 AM ROAD, BANGALORE,
REPRESENTED BY FIRE OFFICE,
GOKAK, BELGAUM
Digitally signed
by GIRIJA A
2. KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT INSURANCE DEPARTMENT
BYAHATTI
Location: HIGH
MOTOR BRANCH, BANGALORE.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2)
---
THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:22-03-2012 PASSED IN
MVC.NO.1583/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST
TRACK COURT-III AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, BELGAUM, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9263
MFA No. 22853 of 2012
JUDGMENT
In this appeal the appellants have challenged the judgment and award dated 22.03.2012 passed in M.V.C. No.1583/2011 by the Fast Track Court-III and Addl. MACT, Belagavi (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal' for short).
2. The appellants were the petitioners and respondents were the respondents before the Tribunal. For the sake of convenience, the rank of the parties will be referred to as per their status before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are, on 10.03.2010, when the son of the petitioners by name Mahaning (in short, 'the deceased'), was standing near the Medical Shop in front of the KSRTC bus stand, Gokak, he was hit by a fire brigade vehicle bearing registration No.KA-01/G-8155, due to which he had sustained injuries. The deceased was treated at the Government Hospital, Gokak, NIMRA Hospital, Gokak and at KLE Hospital, Belagavi. He -3- NC: 2024:KHC-D:9263 MFA No. 22853 of 2012 succumbed to the death due to the injuries sustained in the accident, on 31.03.2010.
3(a) The petitioners being the parents approached the Tribunal for grant of compensation of Rs.12,50,000/- with 18% interest. The claim was opposed by respondent No.1. The Tribunal after recording the evidence and hearing both the parties, partly allowed the claim petition and awarded the compensation of Rs.6,21,000/- with interest at 8% p.a. Pleading inadequacy and seeking enhancement of compensation, the petitioners have filed this appeal on various grounds.
4. Heard the arguments of Sri. Santosh Hattikatagi, learned counsel appearing for appellants/petitioners and Sri. Abhishek Malipatil, learned HCGP appearing for the respondents.
5. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month which is on the lower side. The multiplier selected by the Tribunal is based on -4- NC: 2024:KHC-D:9263 MFA No. 22853 of 2012 the age of the younger parent of the deceased at 50 years, which is not proper. The age of the deceased at 23 ought to have been taken. No future prospects is considered. The compensation awarded under the conventional heads is also on the lower side and sought for enhancement of compensation.
6. Per contra, learned HCGP for the respondents contended that the petitioners have not produced any Insurance Policy pertaining to the fire brigade vehicle in question and for this reason, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim against respondent No.2. The petitioners have not produced any proof of income. The Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month and the age of the deceased may be taken in selection of multiplier and compensation may be re-determined. He further submitted that the interest awarded by the Tribunal at 8% p.a. is on the higher side and the same needs to be reduced. Apart from that, he supported the impugned judgment.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9263 MFA No. 22853 of 2012
7. I gave my anxious consideration to the arguments addressed on behalf of the parties and perused the records.
8. The material on record shows that, on 10.03.2010, when the deceased was standing near a medical shop in front of the KSRTC bus stand at 1.00 pm, a fire brigade vehicle bearing registration No.KA-01/G- 8155 hit against him, due to which he sustained injuries and was treated at 3 different hospitals and unfortunately, succumbed to injuries on 31.03.2010. The death of the deceased on account of the injuries sustained in the accident is supported by post-mortem report at Ex.P5. The prosecution papers, such as the FIR, Complaint, Panchanama, Motor Vehicle Inspection Report etc., as per Exs.P1 to P6 and also Ex.P9 - Charge Sheet, point out the negligence on the part of the driver of the fire brigade vehicle. The petitioners are the parents of the deceased. Hence they are entitled to claim compensation on account of the death of their son in the accident in question. -6-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9263 MFA No. 22853 of 2012
9. On perusal of the impugned judgment, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month and taken the age of the younger parent i.e., the second petitioner at 50 years for selection of the multiplier. The age of the deceased is relevant and not the parents for selection of the multiplier. Hence the age of the deceased at 23 has to be considered for selection of the multiplier. The accident is of the year 2010. The deceased was said to be the DTP operator. But there is no proof of income. The person with no proof of income in the year 2010 will not earn less than Rs.5,500/- per month. Hence the notional income of the deceased has to be taken at Rs.5,500/- per month and Rs.4,500/- per month taken by the Tribunal is on the lower side.
10. In a case of this nature, compensation has to be determined following the principles laid down in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others1. By applying the principles 1 2017 ACJ 680 -7- NC: 2024:KHC-D:9263 MFA No. 22853 of 2012 laid down in the said case, the future prospects should be taken at 40% for age below 40 years.
11. As discussed above, the income of the deceased will be Rs.5,500/- per month and since the deceased is a bachelor, 50% has to be deducted towards personal expenses. The multiplier as per decision of Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation - (2009)6 SCC 121, would be '18'. Hence the determination of compensation towards 'loss of dependency' will be Rs.5500+2200 (40% of Rs.5500) = 7700 - 3850 (50% of Rs.7700) = Rs.3,850 x 12 x 18 = Rs.8,31,600/-.
12. The medical records produced by the petitioners show that they have spent Rs.2,00,000/- towards the treatment of the deceased. Hence the petitioners are entitled to reimbursement of 'Medical Expenses' of Rs.2,00,000/-.
13. The petitioners are also entitled for compensation under the conventional heads. Towards -8- NC: 2024:KHC-D:9263 MFA No. 22853 of 2012 'Funeral and Transportation Expenses' and 'Loss of Estate', Rs.15,000/- each has to be assessed and towards 'Loss of Love and Affection', Rs.40,000/- each and to be awarded.
14. Thus, the petitioners are entitled to total compensation under the following heads:
Sl. Compensation
Heads
No. (Rs.)
1. Loss of dependency 8,31,600.00
2. Medical expenses 2,00,000.00
3. Loss of Estate 15,000.00
Funeral and Transportation
4. 15,000.00
Expenses
Loss of Love and Affection
5. 80,000.00
(Rs.40,000 each)
Total 11,41,600.00
The petitioners are entitled to total compensation Rs.11,41,600/- as against Rs.6,21,000/- assessed by the Tribunal and enhanced compensation is Rs.5,20,600/-. It is the adequate compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case.
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9263 MFA No. 22853 of 2012
15. As regards the rate of interest is concerned, the Tribunal has not assigned any reason why it has awarded interest at 9% p.a. There is no doubt that no banks would have offered interest at the rate of 9% p.a. in the year 2010. Keeping these aspects into consideration, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Joyeeta Bose and others Vs. Venkateshan V. and others2 at para 51 and 52 has held as follows:
"51. It is seriously contended by the learned counsel for the respondents-Insurance Companies that award of interest @ 8% p.a. is on the higher side and we accept the said contention. Section 34 of CPC reads as under:
"34. Interest.--(1) Where and in so far as a decree is for the payment of money, the Court may, in the decree, order interest at such rate as the Court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged, from the date of the suit to the date of decree, in addition to any interest adjudged on such principal sum for any period prior to the institution of the suit, with further interest at such rate not 2 MFA No.5896/2018 c/w MFA Nos.4444/2018 & 4659/2018
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9263 MFA No. 22853 of 2012 exceeding six per cent per annum as the Court deems reasonable on such principal sum, from the date of the decree to the date of payment, or to such earlier date as the Court thinks fit:
Provided that where the liability in relation to the sum so adjudged had arisen out of a commercial transaction, the rate of such further interest may exceed six per cent per annum, but shall not exceed the contractual rate of interest or where there is no contractual rate, the rate at which moneys are lent or advanced by nationalised banks in relation to commercial transactions.
(2) Where such a decree is silent with respect to the payment of further interest on such principal sum from the date of the decree to the date of payment or other earlier date, the Court shall be deemed to have refused such interest, and a separate suit therefore shall not lie."
52. Thus, under Section 34 of CPC being squarely applicable to the interest awarded by the tribunal and Section 34 empowering the tribunal to award pendente lite interest and discretion being vested with the Court/tribunal to award interest from the date of suit or petition is to the maximum extent of 6% p.a. or in other words, not exceeding 6%
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9263 MFA No. 22853 of 2012 p.a., the contention raised by the learned Advocates appearing for the Insurance Company deserves to be accepted and accordingly, it is accepted. Hence, we answer point No. 4 partly in the affirmative."
16. The facts of the said case and the facts of the present case are identical in nature. Unless the Tribunal gives a cogent reason for awarding interest at more than 6% p.a., the courts are guided under Section 34 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Hence, the award of interest at 8% p.a. is on the higher side and it has to be at 6% p.a. Since the respondents have not challenged the award of excess interest, it is not proper to interfere with the discretion of the Tribunal. Insofar as enhanced compensation in concerned, the petitioners are entitled to interest at 6% p.a. Since the Tribunal has dismissed claim against respondent No.2, respondent No.1 is liable to pay the compensation amount. Accordingly, the appeal merits consideration. In the result, the following:
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9263 MFA No. 22853 of 2012 ORDER i. The appeal filed by the petitioners is hereby allowed in part.
ii. The judgment and award dated
22.03.2012 passed in M.V.C.
No.1583/2011 by the Fast Track Court- III and Addl. MACT, Belagavi, is hereby modified.
iii. The petitioners would be entitled to
enhanced compensation of
Rs.5,20,600/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till date of deposit.
iv. Respondent No.1 is directed to satisfy the award within eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.
Registry is directed to transmit the records to the Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE gab Ct-cmu LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 14