Karnataka High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Manappa S/O Gangappa Badigari Ors on 21 September, 2012
Author: D.V.Shylendra Kumar
Bench: D V Shylendra Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
Dated this the 21st day of September, 2012
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D V SHYLENDRA KUMAR
Misc.First Appeal No.30429 of 2012 (MV)
BETWEEN:
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
GULBARGA THROUGH ITS
BRANCH MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
GANDHI CHOWK, RAICHUR
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANJAY M JOSHI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MANAPPA
S/O GANGAPPA BADIGARI
AGE: 46 YEARS
OCC: CARPENTER
2. SMT. SUSHEELAMMA
W/O MANAPPA
AGE: 41 YEARS
OCC: HOUSE HOLD
BOTH R/O GURUGUNTA
TQ. LINGASUGUR
DIST. RAICHUR
NOW AT AZADNAGAR, RAICHUR
3. SURYAKANTH
2
S/O BAXSANNA ADAKI
AGE: MAJOR
OCC: DRIVER OF LORRY
R/O CHINCHOLI
TQ. AFZALPUR
DIST. GULBARGA
4. SUBHASH
S/O BHANUVANTH CHAUVAN
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF LORRY
R/O SURYANAGAR
OPP. DA SEDAM ROAD
GULBARGA
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BASAVARAJ R MATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2 )
MFA FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 24.09.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.
233/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. M.A.C.T. AND P.O., FAST
TRACK COURT-I AT RAICHUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION
AND AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS. 4,48,000/- WITH
INTEREST @ 6% P.A.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Appeal by the insurance company who had provided cover to the fourth respondent-owner of lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-32/A-3834, which, while being driven by the third respondent, met with an accident on 06.03.2011 knocking down cyclist - Mutturaj - a carpenter in 3 profession - and who died in the accident and in trhe action brought by his parents for compensation, the Tribunal having quantified the total compensation payable to be Rs.4,48,000/-, complaining that the amount determined by the Tribunal is on the higher side.
2. While the claimants-parents served and represented by counsel Sri.Basavaraj R. Math, the driver and owner are yet to be served. However, as it is the appellant- insurance company which is made liable and it is only on the quantum of compensation, issuing of notice to the third and fourth respondents is of no consequence and therefore with the consent of Sri.Sanjay M. Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company and Sri.Basavaraj R. Math, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2, I have heard the matter on merits. 4
3. While Sri.Sanjay M. Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company submits that the quantification of Rs.4,48,000/-, comprised as under:
1. Towards loss of dependency to petitioner No.2 Mother - Rs.4,20,000/-
2. Towards loss of estate - Rs.10,000/-
3. Towards loss of love and affection - Rs.10,000/-
4. Towards transportation and funeral expenses - Rs. 8,000/-
Total - Rs. 4,48,000/-
is by taking the income of the deceased at a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month and applying the multiplier of 14 with reference to the younger parent's age, and deducting 50% of the earning towards personal expenses of the deceased, with interest at 6%.
4. Submission of Sri.Sanjay M. Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company that the income taken is on the higher side; that while no material was 5 placed before the tribunal to prove that the deceased was a carpenter, the income should not have put at more than Rs.3,750/-, as, even as per the minimum daily wages fixed by the Karnataka Government, the amount should not have been more than this amount.
5. It is well known that unorganized labour in this country are mostly migrant labourer and even skilled labourer migrate from place to place, most of them would not have regular work or employment; that the accident having taken place in the year 2011, even the minimum wages that the State Government and Central Government should pay to daily wage workers is in the range of Rs.150/- per day and in such circumstances, attributing the income of Rs.5,000/- to a worker like a carpenter is a conservative estimate of income and not any liberal or higher estimate of average income of the deceased who had the potential for higher earning in life, being just of the age of 18 to 19 years at the time of death. In a 6 situation of this nature, in fact, it is only the claimants who, perhaps, could have filed an appeal for enhancement and definitely not by the insurance company and therefore the appeal is dismissed, levying costs of Rs.5,000/- on the appellant-insurance company to be payable to the claimants. Cost to be paid along with the amount awarded before the Tribunal within four weeks from today.
6. The amount in deposit before this court is directed to be transmitted to the Tribunal to be made available to the claimants, to be drawn as per the award of the Tribunal.
Sd/-
JUDGE sdu