Karnataka High Court
Smt. Archana W/O Dileep Vastre Ors vs Anil S/O Annasaheb Bosale on 16 November, 2012
Author: K.Bhakthavatsala
Bench: K. Bhakthavatsala
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. BHAKTHAVATSALA
M.F.A. NO.30750 OF 2010
C/W M.F.A. NO.32321 OF 2011 (MV)
IN MFA NO.30750/2010:
BETWEEN:
THE BRANCH MANAGER
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
HANAMSHETTY BUILDING,
GURUKUL ROAD, BIJAPUR.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.VEERESH B.PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. ARCHANA W/O DILEEP VASTRE,
AGE ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
BODILY HANDICAPPED LADY,
2. BAPURAO S/O BABU RAO VASTRE
AGE ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
3. SMT. SUMAN W/O BAPURAO VASTRE
AGE ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC: HH WORK
ALL ARE R/O MATHAPATI GALLI,
2
RAJU MAGIMATH BUILDING,
RAM MANDIR ROAD, BIJAPUR.
4. ANIL ANNASAHEB BOSALE,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS &
OWNER OF H.G. TRUCK BEARING
NO. MH-13/G-6338,
R/O BHOSALE CHOUK,
PANDHARPUR, TQ. PANDHARPUR,
DIST: SOLAPUR.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.BAPUGOUDA SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO
R3, R4 SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.01.10 PASSED IN
MVC NO.433/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. DIST.
JUDGE & MACT NO.II AT BIJAPUR, PARTLY ALLOWING
THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.5,77,600/- WITH
INTEREST AT 6% P.A.
IN MFA NO.32321/2011:
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. ARCHANA W/O DILEEP VASTRE,
AGE ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
BODILY HANDICAPPED LADY,
2. BAPURAO S/O BABU RAO VASTRE
AGE ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
3. SMT. SUMAN W/O BAPURAO VASTRE
AGE ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC: HH WORK
ALL ARE R/O MATHAPATI GALLI,
3
RAJU MAGIMATH BUILDING,
RAM MANDIR ROAD, BIJAPUR.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.BAPUGOUDA SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. ANIL ANNASAHEB BOSALE,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS &
OWNER OF H.G. TRUCK BEARING
NO. MH-13/G-6338,
R/O BHOSALE CHOWK,
PANDHARPUR, TQ. PANDHARPUR,
DIST: SOLAPUR.
2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
POLICY ISSUING OFFICE,
DR. GOLWALKAR COMPLEX,
SOLAPUR
THROUGH THE BRANCH MANAGER,
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
HANAMSHETTY BUILDING,
GURUKUL ROAD, BIJAPUR-585106.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VEERESH B.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2
NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.01.10 PASSED IN
MVC NO.433/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. DIST.
JUDGE & MACT NO.II AT BIJAPUR, PARTLY ALLOWING
THE CLAIM PETITION AND SSEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
4
JUDGMENT
These two appeals are directed against the judgment and award dated 01.01.2010 made in MVC No.433/2008 on the file of First Additional District Judge & MACT-II at Bijapur.
The appellant in MFA No.30750/2010 is before this Court contending that the Tribunal has awarded exorbitant compensation in favour of the claimants.
The appeal in MFA No.32321/2011 is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation on the ground that the Tribunal has not awarded adequate compensation.
2. Heard common arguments and these two appeals are disposed by this common judgment.
3. It is the case of the claimants that on 04.03.2008 when the deceased Dileep was travelling the 5 motor cycle bearing Reg.No.MH-12/SA-6523 and going on Pandharpur Mangalvedha road towards Ujani village, one truck bearing Reg.No.MH-13/G-6338, came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motor cycle as a result of which he sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. The claimants are wife and parents of the deceased Dileep who was aged about 28 years. They filed a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of `17,75,000/- from the owner and insurer of the truck. The deceased was working as a Manager in a milk diary and earning `6,400/- per month. The Tribunal has answered issue No.1 on the point of negligence in the affirmative in favour of the claimants. The Tribunal has taken income of the deceased at `4,200/- per month. After deducting a sum of `1,400/- towards personal expenses of the deceased taken loss of dependency at `2,800/- per month and 6 applied multiplier 16 and awarded compensation in favour of the claimants as under:
Loss of dependency - `5,37,600/-
`2,800 x 12 x 16
Loss of estate - `15,000/-
Loss of consortium - `15,000/-
Loss of love and affection - `5,000/-
Funeral expenses - `5,000/-
------------------
Total - `5,77,600/-
------------------
4. According to postmortem report age of the deceased was 28 years. Ex.P5 is the certificate dated 19.03.2008 issued by his employer stating that he was working in the milk diary as a Manager from 14.02.2005 to 02.03.2008 on a salary of `6,400/- per month. The claimants have not produced driving licence of the deceased. There is no age proof except the postmortem report. There is no satisfactory evidence on record to show that the deceased was working as a Manager in a milk diary and earning `6,400/- per 7 month as stated in Ex.P-5. Under such circumstances the Tribunal is justified in fixing the income of the deceased at `4,200/- per month. The Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. Since the deceased was 28 years old multiplier 17 is applicable. According to the decision SANTOSH DEVI vs NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS [reported in (2012) 6 Supreme Court Cases 421] the claimants are entitled to incremental enhancement of annual income by 30%. In my view the claimants are entitled to compensation as under:
Loss of dependency `2,800 x 12 x 17 `5,71,200/-
+30% of `5,71,200/-
towards incremental `1,71,360/- - `7,42,560/-
enhancement
Loss of estate - `10,000/-
Loss of consortium - `10,000/-
Loss of love and - `10,000/-
affection
8
Transportation of dead - `10,000/-
body & funeral
expenses ------------------
Total - `7,82,560/-
`
------------------
Compensation awarded - `5,77,600/-
by the Tribunal ------------------
Balance - `2,04,960/-
`
------------------
5. Thus the claimants are entitled for additional compensation of `2,04,960/-. Appeal filed by the Insurance Company fails and the appeal filed by the claimants partly succeeds.
6. In the result I pass the following order:
Appeal in MFA No.30750/2010 fails and the same is rejected with costs. Registry is directed to transmit the amount in deposit to the Tribunal for disbursement.
Appeal in MFA No.32321/2011 is partly allowed holding that the appellants-claimants are entitled for an additional compensation of `2,04,960/- along with costs and interest from the date of petition till the date of 9 realisation. Accordingly the impugned judgment and award are modified.
Respondent No.2 - Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with costs and interest with the Tribunal within two months from today.
The enhanced compensation amount along with costs and interest shall be equally apportioned among the claimants. It is made clear that the appellants are not entitled to interest for the delay period of 578 days in filing the appeal.
Sd/-
JUDGE swk