Karnataka High Court
Smt.Sridevi And Ors vs Ramesh And Anr on 1 February, 2022
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF FEBRUARY- 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
MFA NO.201852/2018 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. Smt. Sridevi W/o Late Sanjeevkumar,
Age: 32 years, Occ: Household,
2. Rinku D/o Late Sanjeevkumar,
Age: 14 years, Occ: Student,
3. Monika D/o Late Sanjeevkumar,
Age: 12 years minor,
4. Divya D/o Late Sanjeevkumar,
Age: 10 years minor,
5. Mriya D/o Late Sanjeevkumar,
Age: 8 years Minor,
6. Wilson S/o Late Sanjeevkumar,
Age: 6 years Minor,
Appellant Nos.2 to 6 are minors and they are
under the Guardianship of their mother
Sridevi appellant No.1.
2
7. Maruti S/o Tuljappa,
Age: 52 years, Occ: Nil,
8. Rangamma W/o Maruti Sone,
Age: 50 years, Occ: Household,
R/o Village Kon Melkunda, Tq: Bhalki,
Dist: Bidar-584 101.
... Appellants
(By Sri Babu H. Metagudda, Advocate)
AND:
1. Ramesh S/o Shanker,
Age: 37 years, Occ: Business,
R/o. Village Kon Melkunda, Tq: Bhalki,
Dist: Bidar-584 101.
(Owner of Cruiser Jeep No.KA-39/0643.
2. The Manager,
Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
E-8, EPIP, RIICO Industrial Area, Sitapur,
Dist: Jaipur, State: Rajasthan-302 022.
... Respondents
(Sri. Subhash Mallapur, Advocate for R2;
Notice to R1 is dispensed with)
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, praying to call for
the records in MVC No.24/16 on the file of the II
Additional, MACT & Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Bidar, allow the appeal and modify the judgment and
award dated 24.03.2018 passed in MVC No.24/2016 by the
II Additional MACT & Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Bidar and enhance the compensation from Rs.8,13,000/-
with 6% interest to Rs.79,94,000/- with 12% interest.
3
This appeal coming on for admission this day,
K.S. Hemalekha J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
The claimants have preferred this appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation by assailing the judgment and award dated 24.03.2018 passed in MVC No.24/2016 by the II Addl. M.A.C.T & Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bidar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short).
2. The claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Tribunal, claiming compensation of Rs.79.94 lakhs on account of death of one Sanjeevkumar, contending that on 18.12.2015 at about 22.00 hours on Bhalki Bidar road, when the deceased was returning to his home at Kon Melkunda by walk and came near Siddeshwar cross, a Cruiser Jeep bearing Reg.No.KA.39.0643 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased, due to which the deceased fell on the road and sustained grievous injuries on the vital parts of the body and died on 4 the spot. The claimants are the wife, minor children and the parents of the deceased Sanjeevkumar. The deceased was hale and healthy and was aged about 32 years at the time of the accident and he was doing mason work and was earning more than Rs.1,000/- per day and also earning around Rs.150/- per day by doing milk vending work and thus, contended that the deceased was earning Rs.34,500/- per month. The claimants were solely dependent upon the deceased for their livelihood and he was the only breadwinner of the family.
3. On issuance of notice by the Tribunal, respondent No.1-owner of the offending vehicle and respondent No.2-insurance company appeared and filed their written statement.
4. Respondent No.1-owner of the vehicle denied the occurrence of the accident and the negligence on the part of the driver of the Cruiser Jeep bearing Reg.No.KA.39.0643.
5
5. Respondent No.2 - insurance company contended that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and also contended that the owner of the vehicle has violated the conditions of the policy and the driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident.
6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following:
ISSUES
1. Whether the claimants prove that Sanjeevkumar died in the motor vehicle accident, that occurred on 18-12-2015 at about 2200 hours near Siddeshwar cross infront of land of Srimanth Talwade on Bhalki-Bidar road on account of the rash and negligent driving of the cruiser Jeep bearing No.KA.39.0643 by its driver?
2. Whether the claimants prove that they are entitled for the compensation? To what extent and from whom?
3. What order or decree?
7. In order to substantiate their case, claimant No.1-the wife of deceased Sanjeevkumar examined herself 6 as PW.1 and one witness as PW.2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9. On the other hand, respondents did no adduce any evidence, but got marked one document at Ex.R1.
8. On the basis of the pleadings, evidence and material on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of Cruiser Jeep bearing Reg.No.KA.39.0643 and awarded a compensation of Rs.8,13,000/-along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization under the following heads:
Loss of dependency Rs.7,68,000/-
Loss of love and affection Rs.20,000/-
Transportation of dead body Rs.15,000/-
Loss of consortium for Rs.10,000/-
petitioner No.1
Total Rs.08,13,000/-
9. Being not satisfied with the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants have preferred the present appeal.
7
10. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for respondent No.2-insurance company and perused the material on record.
11. Sri Babu H. Metagudda, learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the deceased was hale and healthy, aged about 32 years at the time of accident and was working as Mason and earning Rs.1,000/- per day and also doing milk vending work and getting Rs.150/- per day and sought to contend that the deceased was earning Rs.34,500/- per month and that the notional income at Rs.6,000/- per month taken by the Tribunal is much on the lower side. The loss of dependency arrived at by the Tribunal is by deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, whereas the proper deduction is 1/5th. It is specifically contended that the Tribunal has awarded compensation towards loss of consortium only in respect of petitioner No.1, which is very meager and also no amount is awarded to the other petitioners under the said head. It is also contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal 8 towards loss of love and affection, transportation of dead body is much on the lower side. Thus, on all these grounds, he seeks for enhancement of compensation.
12. Per contra Sri Subhash Mallapur, learned counsel for respondent No.2-insurance company would contend that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and the manner in which the Tribunal has assessed the compensation would not call for any interference.
13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is, Whether the appellants are entitled for enhanced compensation?
14. The fact that Sanjeevkumar succumbed to the injuries sustained by him in the accident that occurred on 18.12.2015 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Cruiser Jeep bearing Reg.No.KA.39.0643 is 9 not in dispute. However, the controversy is with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
15. The accident has occurred in the year 2015 and the deceased was doing Mason work and also doing milk vending work and was earning Rs.34,500/- per month as per the contention of the claimants. The Tribunal was not justified in taking the notional income of the deceased only at Rs.6,000/- per month. Even assuming that the claimants have not produced any evidence to show the income of the deceased, as per the guidelines of the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, the notional income for the accidents occurred in the year 2015 is to be taken at Rs.8,000/- per month. Hence, considering the income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month, adding 40% of it i.e., Rs.3,200/- towards future prospects as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, after deducting 1/5th of it i.e., Rs.2,240/- towards personal expenses of 10 the deceased and applying the multiplier of 16 since the deceased was aged 35 years, the total compensation payable towards loss of dependency would come to Rs.17,20,320/- (Rs.8,000 + 3,200 = Rs.11,200 - Rs.2,240 = Rs.8,960 x 12 x 16).
16. In view of the dictum of the Honble Apex Court in Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in AIR 2020 SC 3076 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram reported in 2018 ACJ 2782, the appellants, who are eight in number i.e., the parents, wife and five children of the deceased would be entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of filial, spousal and parental consortium. Further, the appellants are entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral and obsequies ceremony.
17. Thereby the appellants are entitled for total compensation under various heads as under: 11
1. Towards loss of dependency Rs.17,20,320/-
2. Towards loss of filial, spousal Rs.3,20,000/-
and parental consortium (Rs.40,000 x 8)
3. Towards loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
4. Towards funeral and obsequies Rs.15,000/-
ceremony
Total Rs.20,70,320/-
18. The Tribunal has already awarded
compensation of Rs.8,13,000/-. Hence, after deducting the same, the appellants are entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.12,57,320/- (Rs.20,70,320/- less Rs.8,13,000/-) with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
19. In view of the same, the point raised for consideration is answered in the affirmative.
20. In the result, we pass the following ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed in part.
ii) The judgment and award dated 24.03.2018 passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.24/2016 is hereby modified.
12
iii) The appellants/claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.12,57,320/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.
iv) The apportionment, deposit and release of the enhanced compensation would be as per the award of the Tribunal.
v) Respondent No.2-insurance company shall deposit the compensation amount with updated interest within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
vi) Parties to bear their respective costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE SMP/LG