Karnataka High Court
Panchabai W/O Sharad Pawar, vs Basappa S/O Nagappa Koth, on 7 December, 2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7th DAY OF DECEMBER 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.A. PATIL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.103103 of 2015 (MV)
BETWEEN
1. PANCHABAI W/O SHARAD PAWAR,
AGE:28 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: SHENDURSINA, TQ:AUNDA,
DIST: HINGOLI, NOW AT EXAMBA,
TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. SHARAD S/O SUNDARRAO PAWAR,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O: SHENDURSINA, TQ: AUNDA,
DIST: HINGOLI, NOW AT EXAMBA,
TQ: CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
... APPELLANTS
(By Sri. SANTOSH S HATTIKATAGI, ADV. )
AND
1. BASAPPA S/O NAGAPPA KOTH,
AGE:MAJOR, OCC:BUSINESS,
R/O: EXAMBA, TQ: CHIKKODI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD
MARUTI GALLI, BELAGAVI.
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. S S JOSHI FOR R2, ADV.
NOTICE TO R-1 DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED16.11.2017)
THIS MFA FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 7.11.2012 PASSED IN MVC
2
NO.294/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST
TRACK COURT-I, CHIKODI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and respondent No.2 on I.A.1 of 2015. The said application has been filed for condonation of delay of 984 days in preferring the appeal. The said application has been contested by respondent No.2 by filing statement of objections. But any how, the matter has to be heard and decided on merits and in order to meet the ends of justice, the delay of 984 days is condoned subject to the condition that in the event of enhancement of compensation, the said period will not carry any interest and it will meet the ends of justice.
2. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimants assailing the judgment and award dated 07.11.2012 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-I, Chikodi, in MVC No.294 of 2012.
3
3. Heard. The appeal is admitted and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal.
4. Brief facts of the case are that on 06.12.2011 at 4.00 p.m., in a land bearing R.S. No.752 at Examba Village, the driver of the tractor bearing No.MXX-7395 and trailer bearing No.23/TB 218 drove the same rashly and negligently and while taking reverse, the said tractor ran over a child which was sleeping in the sugar cane field and as a result of the same, the said child sustained injuries and died on the spot. For having lost 3 years child, a claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation.
In pursuance of the notice, both the respondents appeared and filed their objection statements.
By denying the contents of the petition, it is further contended by respondent No.1 that the driver of the tractor was holding valid and effective driving licence and the said vehicle has been insured with respondent No.2 and as such respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation.
Respondent No.2 by denying the contents of the petition, further contended that the driver was not holding 4 valid and effective driving licence and he has violated the terms and conditions of the policy and as such, it is not liable to pay any compensation. On these grounds, it prayed for dismissal of the petition.
On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
1. Whether petitioner proves that on 6.12.2011 at 16.00 hrs. in the land bearing RS No.752 situated at Examba village, the respondent No.1's tractor bearing No.MXX-
7395 trailor bearing No.23/TB-218 was driven by his driver in rash and negligent manner and taken the said tractor and trailor reverse direction negligently without observing the petitioner's 3 years old child which was sleeping in the sugar cane field and thereby the tractor trailer ran over the said child and thereby sustained grievous injuries and died at the spot?
2. Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation? if so what is the quantum and from whom?
3. What order/award?
In order to prove the case of the petitioners, the first petitioner was examined as PW-1 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-9. On behalf of the respondents, respondent No.1 got examined as RW-1 and got marked Exs.R-1 and R2.
After hearing the parties to the lis, the impugned judgment and award came to be passed by the Tribunal. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimants are before this Court.
5
5. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioners are that the compensation which has been awarded by the Tribunal is erroneous and it is on the lower side and the Tribunal ought to have awarded global compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. He further contended that the compensation of Rs.50,000/- ought to have been awarded under conventional heads. On these grounds, he prayed for allowing the appeal.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the insurer vehemently argued and contended that the Tribunal has awarded compensation even for loss of consortium to an extent of Rs.10,000/- though it is not permissible. Even the compensation awarded under other heads is also on the higher side and on these grounds he prayed for confirming the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and to dismiss the appeal.
7. The accident is not in dispute so also involvement of the offending vehicle insured with the respondent-insurance company.
6
8. As could be seen from the impugned judgment and award, the alleged accident took place on 6.12.2011 at about 4.00 p.m. When the 3 year old child was sleeping in the sugarcane field, a tractor ran over the child and she succumbed to the injuries. Now it is well settled principles of law that in case of death of a non-earning member, below the age of 15 years, notional income of Rs.15,000/- per annum has to be taken and multiplier of 15 has to be adapted. If that were to be adapted, then, under such circumstances, the petitioners are entitled to an amount of Rs.2,25,000/- towards loss of their minor child and a sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded under conventional heads. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.10,000/- under loss of consortium, Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expense and Rs.3,000/- towards conveyance. Awarding a sum of a Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium is not sustainable and ought not have granted the said compensation under the said head. But no doubt, by reassessing the compensation, the appellants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.2,75,000/- with interest at the 7 rate of 6% per annum. Since the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.2,53,000/-, after deducting the same, the appellants/claimants are entitled to additional compensation of Rs.22,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 07.11.2012 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-I, Chikodi, in MVC No.294 of 2012 is modified as indicated above. The insurer is directed to deposit the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the additional compensation awarded by this Court within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. It is made clear that the appellants are not entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation for a delayed period of 984 day as per today's order in the body of the judgment.
Registry is directed to draw the award accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE Kmv