Karnataka High Court
Maruthirao S/O Laxmanarao vs Mohd. Rashed S/O Md. Ibrahim And Ors on 23 August, 2023
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6703
MFA No. 201949 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 201950 of 2016
MFA No. 201951 of 2016
MFA No. 201952 of 2016
MFA No. 201953 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201949 OF 2016 (MV-D)
C/W
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201950 OF 2016
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201951 OF 2016
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201952 OF 2016
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201953 OF 2016
In MFA No.201949/2016 :
BETWEEN:
1. MARUTI RAO S/O SHREEPATHI RAO,
AGE:45 YEARS, OCC:COOLIE,
2. MANIK RAO S/O SHREEPATHI RAO,
AGE:40 YEARS, PHYSICAL HANDICAP,
3. MAHADEV RAO S/O SHREEPATHI RAO,
AGE:34 YEARS, OCC:COOLIE,
Digitally signed
by SACHIN ALL R/O:HAVINAL, TQ:SHORAPUR,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF DIST:YADGIR.
KARNATAKA
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. LAXMIKANTH H K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MOHD. RASHED S/O MD. IBRAHIM,
AGE:MAJOR, OCC:BUSINESS/OWNER OF VEHICLE,
NO.AP-13-W-8505, R/O:H.NO.11-7-122/5,
NAMPALLI, HYDERABAD (ANDHRA PRADESH).
2. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
ASIAN PLAZA, SARDAR VALLABHAI PATEL CHOWK
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6703
MFA No. 201949 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 201950 of 2016
MFA No. 201951 of 2016
MFA No. 201952 of 2016
MFA No. 201953 of 2016
KALABURAGI THROUGH OFFICER INCHARGE.
3. BHEEMANNA S/O RUDRAPPA,
AGE:MAJOR, OCC:BUSINESS/OWNER OF LORRY
BEARING REG.NO.KA-33-555,
R/O:RANGAMPETH, TQ:SHORAPUR,
DIST:YADGIRI.
4. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
BILGUNDI COMPLEX, STATION ROAD,
KALABURAGI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI FOR R2, ADVOCATE;
SRI KRUPA SAGAR PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI SUDARSHAN M. ADVOCATE FOR R4;
NOTICE TO R1 SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY
MODIFYING THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
30.09.2014 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL.
MACT, SHORAPUR IN MVC NO.238/2011 AND CONSEQUENTLY
BE PLEASED TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION FROM
RS.2,65,000/- TO RS.7,00,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 12% PER
ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ACTUAL
REALIZATION BY FASTING THE LIABILTY ON RESPONDENT
NO.2 INSURANCE COMPANY AND ALSO RESPONDENT NO.3,
AND 4, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6703
MFA No. 201949 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 201950 of 2016
MFA No. 201951 of 2016
MFA No. 201952 of 2016
MFA No. 201953 of 2016
IN MFA NO.201950/2016 :
BETWEEN:
PRABHAKAR RAO S/O MUKUNDRAO,
AGE:53 YEARS, OCC:COOLIE,
R/O:HAVINAL, TQ:SHORAPUR,
DIST:YADGIR - 585 201.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. LAXMIKANTH H K,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MOHD. RASHED S/O MD. IBRAHIM,
AGE:MAJOR, OCC:BUSINESS/OWNER OF VEHICLE
NO.AP-13-W-8505, R/O:H.NO.11-7-122/5,
NAMPALLI, HYDERABAD - 500001
(ANDHRA PRADESH).
2. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
ASIAN PLAZA, SARDAR VALLABHAI PATEL CHOWK,
KALABURAGI - 585 101.
THROUGH OFFICER INCHARGE.
3. BHEEMANNA S/O RUDRAPPA,
AGE:MAJOR, OCC:BUSINESS/OWNER OF LORRY
BEARING REG.NO.KA-33-555,
R/O:RANGAMPETH, TQ:SHORAPUR,
DIST:YADGIRI - 585 224.
4. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
BILGUNDI COMPLEX, STATION ROAD,
KALABURAGI - 585 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI FOR R2, ADVOCATE;
SRI KRUPA SAGAR PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI SUDARSHAN M. ADVOCATE FOR R4;
NOTICE TO R1 SERVED)
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6703
MFA No. 201949 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 201950 of 2016
MFA No. 201951 of 2016
MFA No. 201952 of 2016
MFA No. 201953 of 2016
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY
MODIFYING THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
30.09.2014 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL.
MACT, SHORAPUR IN MVC NO.236/2011 AND CONSEQUENTLY
BE PLEASED TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION FROM
RS.3,12,000/- TO RS.6,50,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 12% PER
ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ACTUAL
REALIZATION BY FASTING THE LIABILTY ON RESPONDENT
NO.2 INSURANCE COMPANY AND ALSO RESPONDENT NO.3,
AND 4, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN MFA NO.201951/2016 :
BETWEEN:
1. VIJAYA W/O LATE SHRIPATH RAO,
AGE:46 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD,
2. PRASHANT S/O LATE SHRIPATH RAO,
AGE:22 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT,
3. RAMESH S/O LATE SHRIPATH RAO,
AGE:20 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT,
4. BHASKAR S/O SHRIPATH RAO,
AGE:18 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT,
5. UMA D/O SHRIPATH RAO,
AGE:17 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT,
6. TULSI D/O SHRIPATH RAO,
AGE:15 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT,
APPELLANT NO.5 TO 6 ARE MINORS UNDER
GUARDIANSHIP OF THEIR NATURAL MOTHER I.E.
APPELLANT NO.1
-5-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6703
MFA No. 201949 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 201950 of 2016
MFA No. 201951 of 2016
MFA No. 201952 of 2016
MFA No. 201953 of 2016
ALL R/O: HAVINAL, TQ:SHORAPUR,
DIST:YADGIR - 585 201.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. LAXMIKANT H.K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MOHD. RASHED S/O MD. IBRAHIM,
AGE:MAJOR, OCC:BUSINESS/OWNER OF VEHICLE
NO.AP-13-W-8505, R/O:H.NO.11-7-122/5,
NAMPALLI, HYDERABAD -508373.
(ANDHRA PRADESH).
2. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
ASIAN PLAZA, SARDAR VALLABHAI PATEL CHOWK,
KALABURAGI - 585 103,
THROUGH OFFICER INCHARGE.
3. BHEEMANNA S/O RUDRAPPA,
AGE:MAJOR, OCC:BUSINESS/OWNER OF LORRY
BEARING REG.NO.KA-33-555,
R/O:RANGAMPETH, TQ:SHORAPUR,
DIST:YADGIRI - 585 220.
4. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
BILGUNDI COMPLEX, STATION ROAD,
KALABURAGI - 585 103.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. KRUPA SAGAR PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SMT.PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
VIDE ORDER DATED 23.08.2023)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY
MODIFYING THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
30.09.2014 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL.
-6-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6703
MFA No. 201949 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 201950 of 2016
MFA No. 201951 of 2016
MFA No. 201952 of 2016
MFA No. 201953 of 2016
MACT, SHORAPUR IN MVC NO.235/2011 AND CONSEQUENTLY
BE PLEASED TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION FROM
RS.6,67,000/- TO RS.8,00,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 12% PER
ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ACTUAL
REALIZATION BY FASTING THE LIABILTY ON RESPONDENT
NO.2 INSURANCE COMPANY AND ALSO RESPONDENT NO.3,
AND 4, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN MFA NO.201952/2016 :
BETWEEN:
JYOTI D/O LATE SUBHASH RAO,
AGE:18 YEARS, OCC:STUDNET,
R/O:HAVINAL, TQ:SHORAPUR,
DIST:YADGIR - 585 201.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. LAXMIKANTH K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MOHD. RASHED S/O MD. IBRAHIM,
AGE:MAJOR, OCC:BUSINESS/OWNER OF VEHICLE,
NO.AP-13-W-8505, R/O:H.NO.11-7-122/5,
NAMPALLI, HYDERABAD
(ANDHRA PRADESH) - 508373.
2. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
ASIAN PLAZA, SARDAR VALLABHAI PATEL CHOWK,
KALABURAGI - 585 103,
THROUGH OFFICER IN CHARGE.
3. BHEEMANNA S/O RUDRAPPA,
AGE:MAJOR, OCC:BUSINESS/OWNER OF LORRY
BEARING REG.NO.KA-33-555,
R/O:RANGAMPETH, TQ:SHORAPUR,
DIST:YADGIRI - 585 220.
-7-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6703
MFA No. 201949 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 201950 of 2016
MFA No. 201951 of 2016
MFA No. 201952 of 2016
MFA No. 201953 of 2016
4. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
BILGUNDI COMPLEX, STATION ROAD,
KALABURAGI - 585 103.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI KRUPA SAGAR PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI SUDARSHAN M ADVOCATE FOR R4;
VIDE ORDER DATED 23.08.2023 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED
WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY
MODIFYING THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
30.09.2014 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL.
MACT, SHORAPUR IN MVC NO.234/2011 AND CONSEQUENTLY
BE PLEASED TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION WITH
INTEREST @ 12% PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF PETITION
TILL ACTUAL REALIZATION BY FASTING THE LIABILTY ON
RESPONDENT NO.2 INSURANCE COMPANY AND ALSO
RESPONDENT NO.3, AND 4, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
IN MFA NO.201953/2016 :
BETWEEN:
MARUTHIRAO S/O LAXMANARAO,
AGE:45 YEARS, OCC:COOLIE,
R/O:HAVINAL TQ:SHORAPUR,
DIST:YADGIR - 585 201.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. LAXMIKANTH H K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MOHD. RASHED S/O MD. IBRAHIM,
AGE:MAJOR, OCC:BUSINESS/OWNER OF VEHICLE
NO.AP-13-W-8505, R/O:H.NO.11-7-122/5,
-8-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6703
MFA No. 201949 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 201950 of 2016
MFA No. 201951 of 2016
MFA No. 201952 of 2016
MFA No. 201953 of 2016
NAMPALLI, HYDERABAD
(ANDHRA PRADESH) - 500001.
2. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
ASIAN PLAZA, SARDAR VALLABHAI PATEL CHOWK,
KALABURAGI - 585 101,
THROUGH OFFICER INCHARGE.
3. BHEEMANNA S/O RUDRAPPA,
AGE:MAJOR, OCC:BUSINESS/OWNER OF LORRY
BEARING REG.NO.KA-33-555,
R/O:RANGAMPETH, TQ:SHORAPUR,
DIST:YADGIRI - 585 224.
4. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
BILGUNDI COMPLEX, STATION ROAD,
KALABURAGI - 585 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI KRUPA SAGAR PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
VIDE ORDER DATED 23.08.2023 NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED
WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY
MODIFYING THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
30.09.2014 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL.
MACT, SHORAPUR IN MVC NO.237/2011 AND CONSEQUENTLY
BE PLEASED TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION FROM
RS.3,12,000/- TO RS.6,50,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 12% PER
ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ACTUAL
REALIZATION BY FASTING THE LIABILTY ON RESPONDENT
NO.2 INSURANCE COMPANY AND ALSO RESPONDENT NO.3,
AND 4, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR DICTATING
JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
-9-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6703
MFA No. 201949 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 201950 of 2016
MFA No. 201951 of 2016
MFA No. 201952 of 2016
MFA No. 201953 of 2016
JUDGMENT
Challenging judgments and awards dated 30.09.2014 passed by Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Shorapur insofar as in MVC nos.238, 236, 235, 234 and 237 of 2011, these appeals are filed.
2. Shri Lakshmikanth H.K., learned counsel for appellants submitted that appeals are by claimants challenging dismissal of claim petitions against respondents no.2 and 4-insurers and also seeking enhancement of compensation. It was submitted that in an accident that occurred on 08.05.2010, Indrabai, Bhimabai, Shripathirao, Ambabai and Chandrabai, traveling in tempo bearing registration no.AP-13/W-8085 along with rice bags sustained fatal injuries when tempo was dashed against a parked lorry bearing registration no.KA-33/555 parked negligently on road without any parking signs by its driver. Claiming compensation for same, claim petitions were filed under Section 166 of
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6703 MFA No. 201949 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 201950 of 2016 MFA No. 201951 of 2016 MFA No. 201952 of 2016 MFA No. 201953 of 2016 Motor Vehicles Act against owner and insurer of both vehicles i.e., tempo and lorry.
3. Despite service of notice, owner of tempo did not appear. He was placed ex-parte. Respondent no.2 - Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. (insurer of tempo) filed objections denying coverage, as deceased were unauthorized passengers in goods vehicle and alleging violation of policy conditions. Respondent no.3 filed objections denying negligence. Respondent no.4-insurer of lorry also opposed claim petitions denying negligence and liable to pay compensation.
4. Based on pleadings, tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence. Since all claim petitions arose out of same accident, they were clubbed together and common evidence was recorded. Five witnesses were examined on behalf of claimants and Exs.P1 to 8 were marked. Two witnesses were examined as RWs.1 and 2 on behalf of respondents and Exs.R1 to R3 were marked.
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6703 MFA No. 201949 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 201950 of 2016 MFA No. 201951 of 2016 MFA No. 201952 of 2016 MFA No. 201953 of 2016
5. On consideration, Tribunal held that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of tempo by its driver. While dismissing claim petitions against respondents no.2 to 4 (namely insurer of tempo, owner and insurer of lorry), it passed awards against respondent no.1 - owner of tempo.
6. It was submitted that reason assigned for dismissal of claim petition against insurers, was unsustainable. Even though claimants were gratuitous passengers in tempo, since they were third parties, tribunal ought to have passed order of pay and recover against insurer as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Anu Bhanvara vs. IFFCO Tokiyo General Insurance Company Limited1.
7. Insofar as apportionment of contributory negligence, it was submitted that since lorry was parked on road without precautionary signage etc., tribunal ought 1 2020 (20) SCC 632
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6703 MFA No. 201949 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 201950 of 2016 MFA No. 201951 of 2016 MFA No. 201952 of 2016 MFA No. 201953 of 2016 to have apportioned entire negligence against driver of lorry for violation of Regulation 15 of Road Regulations 1989 was violated.
8. It was further submitted that tribunal had erroneously considered lower monthly income and without adding future prospects passed inadequate award. It was submitted that even award under conventional heads was inadequate and sought enhancement.
9. On other hand, Smt.Preeti Patil Melkundi learned counsel for respondent no.2/insurer of tempo and Sri Sudarashan M., learned counsel for respondent no.4/insurer of lorry sought to support award. They submitted that there was no evidence about claimants traveling in tempo as owner of goods. In absence of same, they would be gratuitous passengers and as such, insurer would not be liable to pay compensation.
10. Insofar as contributory negligence, it was submitted that Tribunal observed that driver of lorry was
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6703 MFA No. 201949 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 201950 of 2016 MFA No. 201951 of 2016 MFA No. 201952 of 2016 MFA No. 201953 of 2016 not charge-sheeted for wrongful parking and therefore finding regarding negligence was justified. Even on quantum, it was submitted that award was just and proper and would not call for enhancement.
11. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgment and award and record.
12. From above submission and since claimants are in appeal challenging dismissal of claim petitions against insurers, challenging finding on liability of insurer and also seeking enhancement of compensation, following points would arise for consideration:
"(i) Whether dismissal of claim petitions against respondents 2, 3 and 4 by Tribunal, calls for interference ?
(ii) Whether claimants were travelling in tempo as owner of goods and therefore discharge of liability of respondent no.2-insurer calls for interference ?
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6703 MFA No. 201949 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 201950 of 2016 MFA No. 201951 of 2016 MFA No. 201952 of 2016 MFA No. 201953 of 2016
(iii) Whether claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation as sought for ?"
Point no.(i):
13. In order to establish actionable negligence against both vehicles, claimants produced FIR with complaint, charge-sheet and Motor Vehicle Inspector's report marked as Exs.P1 to P3 respectively. Perusal of same, would not reveal any reference to goods belonging to deceased being carried in vehicle. Offences for tempo driver was charge-sheeted were under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of Indian Penal Code read with Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act. Section 187 of M.V.Act is with regard to failure to comply with Sections 132, 133 and 134 of M.V.Act. There is no charge filed against driver of lorry. Except production of FIR, Motor Vehicles Inspector's report and charge-sheet, there is no other material before tribunal for apportionment of contributory negligence against driver of lorry. Hence, finding of tribunal apportioning entire negligence against driver of tempo
- 15 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6703 MFA No. 201949 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 201950 of 2016 MFA No. 201951 of 2016 MFA No. 201952 of 2016 MFA No. 201953 of 2016 cannot be found fault with. Point no.(i) is answered in negative. Therefore dismissal of claim petitions against respondents no.3 and 4 would be justified. Point no.(ii)
14. Since it is observed above that there is no reference to any goods belonging to deceased being carried in vehicle, claimants would be gratuitous passengers. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Anu Bhanvara's case (supra) has held that even in case of gratuitous passengers in goods vehicle, insurer would be liable to pay compensation and thereafter recover same from insured. In instant case, insurance policy issued in respect of tempo is an 'Act liability only policy' which would not cover inmates. Consequently, dismissal of claim petitions against respondent no.2 is also justified. Therefore point no.(ii) is answered in negative.
- 16 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6703 MFA No. 201949 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 201950 of 2016 MFA No. 201951 of 2016 MFA No. 201952 of 2016 MFA No. 201953 of 2016 Point no.(iii):
15. In MFA.no.201949/2016: In this case, deceased - Chandrabai was 70 years of age and claimants are her children. Therefore, as per ratio in case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others2, they would not be entitled to any future prospects. Deductions towards personal expenses will have to be at 1/3rd and multiplier applicable would be '5' and taking notional income at Rs.5,500/- per month, adopted for settlement of cases before Lok Adalath for accidents of year 2010, compensation towards loss of dependency would be:
Rs.5,500 x 2/3 x 12 x 5 = Rs.2,20,000/-.
16. As per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and others3 and 2 (2017) 16 SCC 680 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130
- 17 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6703 MFA No. 201949 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 201950 of 2016 MFA No. 201951 of 2016 MFA No. 201952 of 2016 MFA No. 201953 of 2016 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur and others4, claimants would be entitled for Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of filial consortium. In addition, they would be entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. Since three years have been lapsed after rendering decision in Paranay Sethi's case (supra), claimants are entitled for addition of 10% on compensation towards conventional heads i.e., Rs.15,000/-. Thus, claimants would be entitled for total compensation of Rs.3,85,000/- with interest at 6% p.a.
17. In MFA.no.201950/2016: Claimant has stated that Indrabai was 65 years of age and earning Rs.4,500/- per month from coolie work. Claimant is son. Deceased was married. Therefore, as per ratio in Pranay Sethi's case, claimant would not be entitled for addition of any amount towards future prospects; Deductions 4 AIR 2020 SC 3076
- 18 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6703 MFA No. 201949 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 201950 of 2016 MFA No. 201951 of 2016 MFA No. 201952 of 2016 MFA No. 201953 of 2016 towards personal expenses will have to be at '1/3' and multiplier applicable would be '7'. Taking notional income at Rs.5,500/- per month, compensation towards loss of dependency would be:
Rs.5,500 x 2/3 x 12 x 7 = Rs.3,08,000/-.
18. As per ratio in Pranay Sethi's case, compensation under conventional heads would be Rs.70,000/-. Further, claimant would be entitled for addition of 10% on compensation under conventional heads as per ratio in Pranay Sethi i.e., Rs.7,000/-. Thus, claimant would entitled for total compensation of Rs.3,85,000/- with interest at 6% p.a.
19. In MFA.no.201953/2016: Claimant has stated that deceased Ambubai was 65 years of age earning Rs.4,500/- per month from coolie work. Claimant is son. Deceased was married. Therefore, as per ratio in Pranay Sethi's case, claimant would not be entitled for addition of any amount towards future
- 19 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6703 MFA No. 201949 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 201950 of 2016 MFA No. 201951 of 2016 MFA No. 201952 of 2016 MFA No. 201953 of 2016 prospects. Deductions towards personal expenses will have to be at '1/3' and multiplier applicable would be '7'. Taking notional income at Rs.5,500/-, compensation towards loss of dependency would be:
Rs.5,500 x 2/3 x 12 x 7 = Rs.3,08,000/-.
20. As per ratio in Pranay Sethi's case, compensation under conventional heads would be Rs.70,000/-. Hence, claimant would be entitled for same. Further, claimant would be entitled for addition of 10% on compensation under conventional heads as per ratio in Pranay Sethi's case i.e., Rs.7,000/-.
21. Thus, claimant would entitled for total compensation of Rs.3,85,000/- with interest at 6% p.a.
22. In MFA.no.201951/2016: Claimants have stated that deceased was 56 years of age, working as coolie and earning Rs.6,000/- per month. Tribunal has considered monthly income at Rs.6,000/-. However,
- 20 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6703 MFA No. 201949 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 201950 of 2016 MFA No. 201951 of 2016 MFA No. 201952 of 2016 MFA No. 201953 of 2016 notional income for year 2010 is Rs.5,500/-. Same has to be considered. Claimants are wife and five minor children i.e., six in number. Therefore, as per ratio in Pranay Sethi's case, claimants would be entitled for addition of 10% towards future prospects. Deductions of personal expenses will have to be at 1/5th and multiplier applicable would be '9'. Thus, total compensation towards loss of dependency would be:
Rs.5,500 + 10% x 4/5 x 12 x 9 = Rs.5,22,720/-.
23. As per ratio in Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra) and Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur and others (supra), Claimant no.1- wife would be entitled for Rs.40,000/- towards spousal consortium and claimants no.2 to 6 are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of filial consortium. In addition, they would be entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. Further, as per ratio in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), they
- 21 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6703 MFA No. 201949 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 201950 of 2016 MFA No. 201951 of 2016 MFA No. 201952 of 2016 MFA No. 201953 of 2016 would be entitled for addition of 10% on compensation under conventional heads.
24. Thus, claimants would be entitled for total compensation of Rs.8,19,720/- with interest at 6% p.a.
25. In MFA.no.201952/2016: Claimant has stated that deceased Bhimbai was 30 years of age, working as coolie and earning Rs.6,000/- per month. Claimant is minor child. As per ratio in Pranay Sethi's case, claimant would be entitled for addition of 40% towards future prospects. Deductions towards personal expenses will have to be at 1/3rd and multiplier applicable would be '17'. Notional income for year 2010 is Rs.5,500/-. Same has to be considered. Therefore, total loss of dependency would be:
Rs.5,500 + 40% x 2/3 x 12 x 17 = Rs.10,47,200/-.
26. In addition, claimant would be entitled for Rs.70,000/- towards conventional heads. Further, she would be entitled for addition of 10% on compensation
- 22 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6703 MFA No. 201949 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 201950 of 2016 MFA No. 201951 of 2016 MFA No. 201952 of 2016 MFA No. 201953 of 2016 under conventional heads as per ratio in Pranay Sethi's case.
27. Thus, claimant would be entitled for total compensation of Rs.11,24,200/- with interest at 6% p.a.
28. Point no.3 in all cases is answered partly in affirmative as above. Consequently, following:
ORDER i. Appeals are allowed- in-part.
ii. Appellants in MFA no.201949/2016 are entitled for total compensation of Rs.3,85,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from date of claim petition till deposit, as against Rs.2,65,000/- awarded by Tribunal.
iii. Appellant in MFA.no.201950/2016 is entitled for total compensation of Rs.3,85,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from date of claim petition till deposit, as against Rs.3,12,000/- awarded by Tribunal.
- 23 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6703 MFA No. 201949 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 201950 of 2016 MFA No. 201951 of 2016 MFA No. 201952 of 2016 MFA No. 201953 of 2016 iv. Appellants in MFA.no.201951/2016 are entitled for total compensation of Rs.8,19,720/- with interest at 6% p.a. from date of claim petition till deposit, as against Rs.6,67,000/- awarded by Tribunal.
v. Appellant in MFA.no.201952/2016 is entitled for total compensation of Rs.11,24,200/- with interest at 6% p.a. from date of claim petition till deposit, as against Rs.9,51,000/- awarded by Tribunal.
vi. Appellant in MFA.no.201953/2016 is entitled for total compensation of Rs.3,85,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from date of claim petition till deposit, as against Rs.3,12,000/- awarded by Tribunal.
vii. However, dismissal of claim petition against respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 is confirmed. Only respondent no.1 is held liable to pay compensation.
- 24 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:6703 MFA No. 201949 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 201950 of 2016 MFA No. 201951 of 2016 MFA No. 201952 of 2016 MFA No. 201953 of 2016 viii. Respondent no.1 shall deposit enhanced compensation with interest in all cases within a period of six weeks from date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
ix. Directions issued by Tribunal regarding apportionment, deposit and release shall apply to enhanced compensation proportionately.
Sd/-
JUDGE SN/LG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21