Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1912 (KAR)

Anandibai v. Guruputrappa

2019-08-30

P.G.M.PATIL, S.N.SATYANARAYANA

body2019
JUDGMENT : P.G.M. Patil, J. The first claimant being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 13.07.2016, passed in M.V.C.No.122 of 2015, on the file of X Additional District and Sessions Judge and Additional M.A.C.T., Belagavi ('Tribunal' for short) has filed this appeal. 2. It is the case of the petitioners before the Tribunal that, on 15.12.2014 at about 06.50 hours the son of petitioner No.1-Bharmani S/o. Vaman kadolkar after finishing his fabrication work was returning to Belagavi from Sambra on his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-22/EP-2604 by riding the same in a moderate speed, when he was so proceeding driver of the Truck bearing registration No.MH-09/BC-5282 came from Belagavi side towards Sambra by over taking the some other vehicles in a rash and negligent manner and dashed on the right side of the motorcycle of Bharmani S/o.Vaman Kadolkar, due to which, he was thrown on the road with great force and the wheel of the Truck ran over him. Due to the said impact the said Bharmani sustained grievous injuries to head, chest and other parts of the body and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. 3. The accident in question occurred due to the negligent driving of the driver of respondent No.1. The petitioners have further stated that the deceased was aged about 25 years and was taking contract work in and around Belagavi of fabrication work and was earning Rs.25,000/- per month. Now, the claimant No.1 has lost her dependency and other members of the family. Therefore, she claimed compensation against the owner and insurer of the of fending vehicle. 4. In pursuance of notice, respondent No.1 remained absent and he was placed ex-parte. Respondent No.2 appeared through his counsel and filed objection to the main petition, denying the entire case of the petitioners. He has also denied the age, income and occupation of the deceased. He has further contended that his liability is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. As on the date of the alleged accident there was no valid R.C., fitness and permit of the vehicle and therefore there is breach of conditions of the Insurance policy and the deceased was riding the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and he himself dashed to oncoming Truck and the said accident is due to head on collision between two vehicles, therefore respondent No.2-Insurer sought for dismissal of the petition against him. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed issues. In support of their claim petition, claimant No.1 and one witness were examined as PW.1 and PW.2 and they have got marked 08 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8. Respondent No.2-Insurer has neither produced any documents nor examined any witnesses. After hearing both the parties, Tribunal passed the impugned judgment awarding compensation of Rs. 6,88,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit in favour of petitioner No.1 alone and directed the respondent No.2 to deposit the compensation amount within three months. 6. The claimant No.1 being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation. 7. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the records. 8. A short question which arises for consideration before this Court in this appeal is as to whether the appellant/claimant No.1 has made out grounds for enhancement of the compensation. 9. Claimant No.1 contended before the Tribunal that the deceased was doing fabrication work and earning more than Rs.25,000/- per month. However, claimant has not produced any positive evidence to prove the income of the deceased. Under these circumstances, Tribunal has taken income of the deceased notionally at Rs.6,000/- per month for awarding compensation. Considering the age and occupation of the deceased and year of the accident and also in view of guidelines for settlement of cases before Lok-Adalath, it is just and necessary to consider the income of the deceased at Rs.7,500/- in order to award the compensation. Accordingly, compensation awarded by the Tribunal has to be reassessed considering the income of the deceased at Rs.7,500/- per month. 10. Claimant No.1 being mother of the deceased is also entitled for future prospects at 40% of the income of the deceased which comes to Rs.3,000/-. Accordingly, Rs.7,500/- + Rs.3,000/- (40%) = Rs.10,500/-, out of this,50% has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, which comes to Rs.10,500/- - 50% (personal expenses) = Rs.5,250/- same has been multiplied by 18 and 12 (Rs.5,250/- X 18 X 12 = Rs.11,34,000/-). Thus, Rs.11,34,000/- is awarded towards loss of dependency. Claimant No.1 is also entitled for compensation of Rs.30,000/- under conventional heads viz. , funeral expenses and loss of estate. Thus, Rs.11,34,000/- is awarded towards loss of dependency. Claimant No.1 is also entitled for compensation of Rs.30,000/- under conventional heads viz. , funeral expenses and loss of estate. Thus, the claimant No.1 is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.11,64,000/- as against Rs.6,88,000/- awarded by the Tribunal . The point for consideration is answered accordingly. 11. In the result, this Court proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is allowed in part. The appellant/claimant No.1 is awarded compensation of Rs.11,64,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The order as to deposit and disbursement of the compensation amount shall be in terms of the order of the Tribunal.