Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 2241 (KAR)

Raju Singh v. Sharanappa

2020-11-11

G.NARENDAR, M.I.ARUN

body2020
JUDGMENT G.Narendar, J. - Though the matter is listed for orders, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. This appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act by the appellant-claimant being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 08.04.2019 passed in MVC No.196/2016 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gangavathi (for short the Tribunal ) seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent no.3. 4. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the above appeal are as under: On 19.02.2015, one Tonu Singh, brother of the appellant was proceeding along with one Kamalesh from Salunchimara towards Siddapur by pushing their Ice-cream cart on the left side of Karatagi Gangavathi main road and when they reached Ravi Nagar, the said Tonu Singh, brother of the appellant met with an accident on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1, who was driving the offending vehicle i.e. lorry bearing registration No.KA-01/D-5428, which is owned by respondent no.3. On account of the injuries suffered in the accident, the said Tonu Singh succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Accordingly, the appellant preferred MVC No.196/2016 before the Tribunal claiming compensation under various heads including the head of loss of dependency. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.85,000/- to the claimant along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. However, the Tribunal held that the appellant-claimant is not entitled any compensation under the head of loss of dependency. 5. The appellant is before this court aggrieved by the refusal of the Tribunal to grant compensation under the head of loss of dependency. 6. The matter has been heard on couple of dates. It was categorically pointed out to appellant s counsel that unless and until he is able to demonstrate that the appellant was dependant on the income of the deceased, it would not be proper for this Court to interfere with the reasoning set out by the Tribunal. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant sought time and has placed on record two rulings of the Apex Court, one rendered in the case of GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, AHMEDABAD VS. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant sought time and has placed on record two rulings of the Apex Court, one rendered in the case of GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, AHMEDABAD VS. RAMANBHAI PRABHATBHAI AND ANOTHER, (1987) AIR SC 1690 decided on 11.05.1987 and another ruling rendered in Civil Appeal Nos.242-243/2020 arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.976-977/2020 in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs. BIRENDER AND OTHERS to contend that even adult members are entitled for compensation. 8. There can be no two opinions that even an adult younger brother or grown up son is entitled to claim compensation under the head of loss of dependency subject to condition that they demonstrate that they were indeed dependant on the income of the deceased. 9. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant has made out a case for grant of compensation under the head of loss of dependency? The said point is answered against the appellant. 10. The undisputed facts are that the appellant is the elder brother of the deceased and the appellant and the deceased were living together and eking out their livelihood independently under the same roof. The Tribunal, after looking into the evidence on record, concluded that the appellant-claimant has miserably failed to demonstrate that he was dependant on the income of his younger brother deceased Tonu Singh. 11. The finding recorded by the Tribunal relating to loss of dependency at paragraph 20 reads as under: 20. FINDING WITH REGARD TO LOSS OF DEPENDENCY: In this case, Respondent No.3 has taken up a contention that Petitioner is a major brother of deceased and he was not dependent on the income of the deceased. Admittedly, Petitioner is aged about 30 years. It is shown in the cause title Petitioner is working as a driver. It is seen that there is absolutely no evidence on record that Petitioner was dependant on the deceased. Therefore, Petitioner is not entitled any compensation under the head of loss of dependency. From a reading of the above, it is apparent that the Tribunal has based its reasoning and findings on the admission by the claimant. Further, it is observed that no piece of evidence has been placed on record by the claimant to demonstrate that he was dependant on the deceased younger brother. From a reading of the above, it is apparent that the Tribunal has based its reasoning and findings on the admission by the claimant. Further, it is observed that no piece of evidence has been placed on record by the claimant to demonstrate that he was dependant on the deceased younger brother. It is also not forthcoming as to whether the younger brother was contributing to the welfare and maintenance of the appellant-claimant. 12. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we are of the considered opinion that the reasoning and conclusion of the Tribunal does not call for any interference. 13. In the present case, the material on record does not demonstrate any such evidence being placed by the appellant-claimant before the Tribunal. The rulings stated supra are of no avail to the present case. In the ruling of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, the Apex Court has held that a claim petition even by an adult (brother of the deceased) is maintainable in the light of Sections 110-A to 110-F of the Motor Vehicles Act as they then stood in the statute book. There can be no quarrel with the said proposition. In the ruling of National Insurance Company Limited, the Apex Court entered upon the facts of the case and after appreciating the same, held in paragraph 15 as under: 15. It is thus settled by now that the legal representatives of the deceased have a right to apply for compensation. Having said that, it must necessarily follow that even the major married and earning sons of the deceased being legal representatives have a right to apply for compensation and it would be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the application irrespective of the fact whether the concerned legal representative was fully dependant on the deceased and not to limit the claim towards conventional heads only. The evidence on record in the present case would suggest that the claimants were working as agricultural labourers on contract basis and were earning meagre income between Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/- per annum. In that sense, they were largely dependant on the earning of their mother and in fact, were staying with her, who met with an accident at the young age of 48 years. In that sense, they were largely dependant on the earning of their mother and in fact, were staying with her, who met with an accident at the young age of 48 years. From a reading of the above, it is apparent that the claimants therein tendered evidence to demonstrate that they were earning a very meager income and their mother who was employed in the office of the Tahsildar was drawing a handsome salary while the income of the children was between Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/- per annum. Hence, the Apex Court in the light of the facts of the said case and on the strength of the evidence tendered concluded that they were indeed dependants and has been pleased to award compensation under the head of loss of dependency. 14. As noted by the Tribunal and as concluded by us, we do not find any material which demonstrates such a fact in the present case. In the absence of evidence demonstrating that the adult was dependant on the income of the deceased or that the deceased was caring for the welfare and well being of the claimant, the claimant would not be entitled to claim compensation under the head of loss of dependency. 15. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any ground which warrants interference with the finding of the Tribunal. The appellant is not entitled for any compensation under the head of loss of dependency. 16. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal under other heads are on the higher side and would make up for the omission of the Tribunal to grant compensation under the head of loss of consortium. In fact, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- under the head of loss of estate and the same is contrary to the ruling of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) AIR SC 5157 . 17. Be that as it may as the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head of loss of consortium. We are of the opinion that the compensation awarded under the head of loss of estate does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, the appeal stands rejected.