Karnataka High Court
S M Shivanna S/O Late S Madaiah vs The Manager, Mahindra Freight on 3 January, 2022
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.20646/2013(MV)
BETWEEN:
1. S. M. Shivanna
S/o. late S. Madaiah
Aged about 62 years
2. R. Chandrakala
W/o. S. M. Shivanna
Aged about 52 years
Both are residing at Purgali Village
Mavalli Taluk, Mandya District.
...APPELLANTS
(By Sri. Y. Lakshmikant Reddy, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Manager
Mr. Mahindra Freight
Owner of the Lorry
R/o. Plot No.51, Sector No.24
Cidco Cement Godown
Turbhe Navi Mumbai.
2. The Manager
M/s. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
10003-E, 8, RIICO Industrial Area
Sitapur, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
...RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. S. K. Kayakamath, Advocate for R2 - through VC;
Notice to R1 - dispensed with)
2
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and
award dated 20.06.2012 passed in MVC No.569/2011 on the file
of Member, III-MACT, Ballari, partly allowing the claim petition
for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
This appeal coming on for Admission this day, the court
delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
The instant app eal is filed by the claimants being not satisfied with the compensation amount award ed by the Motor Accidents Claims Trib unal-III, Ballari (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal', for brevity) in MVC No.569/2011, toward s the d eath of their son M. S. Purushotham, who died in a road traffic accident that had taken place on 07.01.2011.
2. The facts of the case that would be relevant for the purpose of disposal of this app eal are:
The deceased M. S. Purushotham, who was the son of the claimants, was proceeding from Hosp et to Toranag allu in his motorcycle b earing No.KA-34/S-5251 on 07.01.2011 at about 8.30 pm. When he had reached Kotaginahal cross on NH-63 road , Ballari, respondent No.1 - driver, who was driving the lorry 3 bearing reg istration No.PB-05/M-6765, all of a sudden stopped the lorry in the center of the road without any signal or indicators and as a result, the b ike of the deceased M. S. Purushotham dashed ag ainst the lorry and he sustained severe injuries on his head and died on his way to Jindal Sanjeevini Hospital. The d eceased was ag ed about 28 years and he was working as a Junior Manager in JSW Steel Limited , Toranagallu and he was d rawing a salary of `36,055/- per month. The claimants, who are the parents of the deceased having lost their son, who was the source of their income for their livelihood, had approached the Trib unal in MVC No.569/2011 claiming compensation of `52,30,000/-.
Respondent No.3 before the Tribunal being the Insurance Company had appeared and filed written statement d enying the case of the petitioners in Toto. The respond ents No.1 and 2 were placed ex-p arte. The Tribunal vide its judgment and award dated 20.06.2012, had totally award ed a sum of `35,11,938/-
towards comp ensation to the claimants with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of 4 deposit. Being not satisfied with the amount of comp ensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants have app roached this Court in this Miscellaneous First Appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the claimants Sri.Lakshmikanth Reddy has submitted b efore this Court that the deceased was ag ed about 28 years and he had a permanent job in a private comp any and PW3, who is his employer, has spoken to the said effect before the Tribunal and therefore, the Trib unal ought to have taken 50% of his income towards his future prosp ects as against 30%. He submits that the deceased was aged about 28 years and therefore, the proper multip lier applicable was 17, whereas the Tribunal has taken it as 13. He also submits that the comp ensation award ed under the conventional heads is also on the lower sid e and accordingly, prays to allow the appeal.
4. Per contra, Sri. Kayakamath, learned counsel app earing on b ehalf of the Insurance Company submits that the Trib unal has erred in taking the income of the 5 deceased as per the salary slip. He submits that the amount of `3,100/- paid towards monthly conveyance and `1,500/- p aid towards Meal Voucher would not enure to the benefit of the claimants as the same was the allowance p aid to the employee and it cannot be consid ered as a salary. However he does not dispute that the Tribunal has erred in taking 30% of the income of the deceased towards future p rospects and 13 as the applicable multiplier.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments addressed by both sides and also p erused the material on record .
6. It is not in dispute that the deceased was working as a Junior Manag er in JSW Steel Limited, Toranag allu. PW3, who is the employer, has been examined by the claimants before the Tribunal to demonstrate that the deceased was a permanent employee of JSW Steel Limited and his salary certificate has been produced as Ex.P6. As rightly contend ed by the learned counsel Sri.Kayakamath, the amount of `3,100/- and `1,500/- respectively p aid by 6 the employer to their employee towards Conveyance Allowance and Meals Voucher can not b e consid ered as the salary and the same would not enure to the b enefit of the claimants and therefore, the Tribunal oug ht to have deducted the said amount while considering the monthly salary of the deceased . If the said amount of `3,100 and `1,500/- is deducted from the monthly salary of `36,055/-, the monthly income of the deceased would be `31,455/-. From the said amount, a sum of `2,000/- is required to be ded ucted towards Income Tax as well as Professional Tax as observed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased would be `29,455/-. Since the deceased had a permanent employment and taking into consid eration that he was ag ed about 28 years, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, additional 50% of the income is req uired to b e add ed to the said amount, which totally comes to `29,455+`14,727= `44,182.00. The proper multiplier applicable in the case on hand would 7 be 17 as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellants. As the d eceased was a b achelor, 50% of the income is required to be deducted towards personal expenses. Therefore, under the head 'loss of dependency' the claimants would be entitled for `45,06,56 4 /- [`22,091 (50% of `44,182) x 12 x 17] as `45,06,564 against ` 34,99,938/- award ed by the Tribunal.
7. The claimants are the p arents of the deceased and therefore, under the conventional heads, they are entitled for a sum of `1,50,000/- as against `12,000/- award ed by the Tribunal, according to the judgment of the Hon'b le Sup reme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Nanu Ram and Others reported in (2018) 8 SCC 130.
8. Under the circumstances, I pass the following:
ORDER Appeal is allowed in part.8
The claimants are totally entitled for `46,56,564/- against `35,11,938/- awarded by the Tribunal. The amount of comp ensation award ed would carry interest at 6% p.a. The third respondent Insurance Company is directed to deposit the comp ensation amount as award ed by this Court within a p eriod of three months from the d ate of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE gab