Karnataka High Court
Moulasab S/O Ibrahimsab Bandarwad Anr vs Mr. Suryakant S/O Sidram Havale Anr on 22 January, 2020
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
MFA NO.32374/2011
C/W
MFA NO.32372/2011 (MV)
IN MFA NO.32374/2011
BETWEEN:
1. Moulasab S/o Ibrahimsab Bandarwad
Age: 41 years, Occ: Coolie
2. Kalimabi W/o Moulasab Bandarwad
Age: 39 years, Occ: Coolie
Both are R/o Hakim Chowk, J.M.Road
Bijapur-586101
... Appellants
(By Sri C.L. Koujalagi, Advocate)
AND:
1. Mr. Suryakant S/o Sidram Havale
Age: Major, Occ: Business
R/o Ward No.2 Shahir Wasti
Solapur-413046 (Maharastra State)
2. The Manager
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
S.S Front Road, Bijapur-586101
... Respondents
2
(Sri J. Augustin, Advocate R2;
V/o dtd: 16.11.2016 notice to R1 is held sufficient)
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act praying to modify the
judgment and award dated: 19.07.2011 passed in MVC No.
914/2010 on the file of the Court of Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal-XII Bijapur at Bijapur and allow this Appeal by
enhancing the compensation amount to Rs.5,35,000/- as
claimed by the appellant before this Hon'ble Court.
IN MFA NO.32372/2011
BETWEEN:
Smt. Hajarabi W/o Rashid Kolhapure @ Shaikh
Age: 51 years, Occ: Coolie
R/o Hakim Chowk, J.M. road
Bijapur - 586101
... Appellant
(By Sri C. L. Koujalagi, Advocate)
AND:
1. Mr. Suryakant S/o Sidram Havale
Age: Major, Occ: Business
R/o Ward No.2, Shahir Wasti
Solapur-413046 (Maharastra State)
2. The Manager
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
S.S. Front Road, Bijapur-586101
... Respondents
(Sri J. Augustin, Advocate R2;
V/o dtd: 16.11.2016 notice to R1 is held sufficient)
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act praying to modify the
judgment and award dated: 19.07.2011 passed in MVC No.
3
915/2010 on the file of the Court of Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal-XII Bijapur at Bijapur and allow this appeal by
enhancing the compensation amount 7,35,000/- as
claimed by the appellant before this Hon'ble Court.
These appeals coming on for hearing this day, the
Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Both these appeals filed by the respective claimants in MVC Nos.914/2010 and 915/2010 take exception to the impugned judgment and award dated 19.07.2011 passed by the learned MACT No.XII, Bijapur (for short, 'the Tribunal').
2. The appellants in MFA No.32374/2011 are the claimants in MVC No.914/2010. Similarly, the appellant in MFA No.32372/2011 is the claimant in MVC No.915/2010.
3. While the deceased Shabana is the daughter of the appellants in MFA No.32374/2011, the deceased Shabbir is the son of appellant in MFA No.32372/2011.
4. By the impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimants in both 4 the cases were entitled to a sum of Rs.3,65,000/- each towards compensation payable on account of death of aforesaid persons. However, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased persons were gratuitous passengers travelling in a goods vehicle and that consequently, the insurance company was not liable to pay compensation and fastened the entire liability on the owner, Suryakanat S/o Sidram Havale. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award absolving the insurance company of its liability to pay compensation as well as the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants are before this Court by way of the present appeals.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the claimants as well as the learned counsel for the insurance company. After hearing the respective counsels and perusing the material on record including the judgment and award, the following two points arise for consideration in the present appeals:
5
1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that the insurance company was not liable to pay compensation on the ground that the deceased persons were gratuitous passengers travelling in a goods vehicle?
2. Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper?
Point No.1:-
6. Insofar as the liability of the insurance company to pay the compensation in respect of the death or bodily injuries caused to the gratuitous passengers travelling in a goods vehicle is concerned, the Apex Court in a recent judgment reported in Anu Bhanvara Etc., v. IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited and others reported in AIR 2019 Supreme Court 3934 is answered in favour of the claimants and against the insurance company.
6Point No.2:-
7. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal took the notional income of the deceased persons as Rs.3,000/- per month. In this context having regard to the Lok Adalath guidelines, the notional income in respect of the deceased persons who died in a accident that occurred in the year 2010 is to be taken as Rs.5,500/- per month. Since the deceased persons were aged less then 40 years, 40% is to be added towards future prospects as held in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others (2017) 16 SCC 680. Further, 50% is to be deducted, since the deceased persons were bachelor. Thus, the income for the purpose of assessing 'loss of dependency' in both the appeals is to be taken as Rs.3,850/- per month. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.8,31,000/- towards 'loss of dependency' as hereunder;
Rs.3,850/- x 12 x 18 = Rs.8,31,600/-
7
8. Insofar as the conventional heads are concerned in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram & Others (2018) 18 SCC 130 and reiterated by the Division Bench of this Court in M.F.A.No.1100/2019 & connected matter disposed of on 12.06.2019, the claimants are entitled to additional compensation under this head.
9. Thus, the total compensation in respect of both the cases would have to be reworked as hereunder:- In MFA No.32374/2011
1 Loss of dependency Rs.8,31,600/- 2 Loss of consortium Rs.60,000/- 3 Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
4 Funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/-
transportation of dead body Total Rs.9,21,600/-
10. Since the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.3,65,000/-, the appellants - claimants would be entitled to an additional enhanced compensation 8 of Rs.5,56,600/- (Rs.9,21,600/- - Rs.3,65,000/-) with interest at 6% p.a. In MFA No.32372/2011 1 Loss of dependency Rs.8,31,600/-
2 Loss of consortium Rs.30,000/-
3 Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
4 Funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/-
transportation of dead body
Total Rs.8,91,600/-
11. Since the Tribunal has awarded a
compensation of Rs.3,65,000/-, the appellant - claimant
would be entitled to an additional enhanced compensation of Rs.5,26,600/- (Rs.8,91,600/- - Rs.3,65,000/-) with interest at 6% p.a.
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I pass the following order:-
(i) Both the appeals are partly allowed.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 19.07.2011 passed by the Tribunal is hereby modified.9
(iii) The appellants-claimants in MFA No.32374/2011 are entitled to additional enhanced compensation of Rs.5,56,600/- which shall carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of realization.
(iv) The appellant-claimant in MFA No.32372/2011 is entitled to additional enhanced compensation of Rs.5,26,600/- which shall carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of realization.
(v) The entire compensation is hereby directed to be paid by respondent No.2 - insurance company which is reserved liberty to pay the said amount and recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle, Mr. Suryakant S/o Sidram Havale, respondent No.1 herein.
(vi) The apportionment and disbursement to be done as per the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
Sd/-
JUDGE RSP