Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 63 (KAR)

Kallamma v. Selladurai P.

2021-01-07

G.NARENDAR, HANCHATE SANJEEV KUMAR

body2021
JUDGMENT : Hanchate Sanjeev Kumar, J. 1. The present appeals are filed by the claimants under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the M.V. Act' for short) calling in question the common judgment and award dated 17.02.2018 passed in MVC No. 427/2015 and MVC No. 425/2015 by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge and M.A.C.T., Gangavathi (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal' for short) seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. Brief facts, which are necessary for disposal of the appeals are as under: It is stated that on 12.05.2015 at about 5.00 a.m. when Basamma along with Roopadevi and others were traveling in Tata Sumo vehicle bearing No. KA.26/M-5959 from Chitradurga to Hosapete, they met with an accident near Amalapur village cross, Kudligi, Tq: Ballari due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No. TN-28/M-8600 by respondent No. 1. In the said accident, Basamma and Roopadevi sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. It is further stated that the deceased were working as Field Investigator in Vimarsh Development Solutions Private Limited, Bengaluru and were earning Rs. 16,500/- p.m. thereby contributing to the family. Due to their death, the claimants being dependants have lost bread winner of the family. Hence, in MFA No. 103490/2018, the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 being mother and sister of deceased Basamma filed case in MVC No. 427/2015 and in MFA No. 103491/2018 the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 being parents and appellant No. 3 being sister of deceased Roopadevi filed case in MVC No. 425/2015 under Section 166 of M.V. Act for claiming compensation. 3. The Tribunal on cumulative consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record allowed the claim petitions in part and granted total compensation of Rs. 8,86,000/- in MVC No. 427/2015 and Rs. 9,44,000/- in MVC No. 425/2015 with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization by directing the respondent Insurance Company to pay the compensation. 4. The learned Counsel for the appellants-claimants submitted that the deceased were working as Field Investigator in Vimarsh Development Solutions Private Limited, Bengaluru and were getting salary of Rs. 16,500/- p.m. BUT, the Tribunal had considered the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 8,000/- p.m. only and has not added income towards future prospects. Further, he submitted that as per the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. 16,500/- p.m. BUT, the Tribunal had considered the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 8,000/- p.m. only and has not added income towards future prospects. Further, he submitted that as per the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , the appellants are entitled for enhancement of compensation, whereas the Tribunal has awarded lesser compensation. 5. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent-Insurer submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in both the claim petitions is correct and proper and hence there is no need to interfere with the same and accordingly sought to dismiss the appeals. 6. In the present cases, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 8,16,000/- in MVC No. 427/2015 and Rs. 8,64,000/- in MVC No. 425/2015 towards loss of dependency by adopting notional income at Rs. 8,000/- p.m. Exs. P11 and P16 are the Working Certificates of deceased Basamma and Roopadevi respectively issued by Vimarsh Development Solutions Private Limited, Bengaluru, wherein it is mentioned that for the purpose of work contract for National Family Health Survey-4, the deceased Basamma has been selected as Field Supervisor/Field Investigator/Health Investigator and deceased Roopadevi as Field Investigator for conducting National Family Health Survey, sponsored by the Government of India and accordingly the same was accepted by the deceased. As per Exs. P11 and P16 - Working Certificates/Work Contract, the monthly remuneration is mentioned as Rs. 13,500/- + Rs. 3,000/- towards Dearness Allowance. Therefore, Exs. P11 and P16-Working Certificates/Work Contract prove that the deceased were earning monthly salary of Rs. 13,500/- including Dearness Allowance as stated above. In support of issuance of these Working Certificates, the Investigator of Vimarsh Development Solutions Private Limited is examined as P.W. 3 and the Coordinator of Vimarsh Development Solutions Private Limited, is examined as P.W. 4. Both these P.Ws. 3 and 4 have deposed that both the deceased were working under the said company. More particularly, PW. 4 -- the Coordinator of the said company had deposed that the deceased were working as Field Supervisor/Field Investigator/Health Investigator and were receiving Rs. 13,500/- including Rs. 3,000/- as Dearness Allowance and in total the deceased were receiving wages of Rs. 16,500/- p.m. and accordingly he has produced Exs. P11 and P16-Working Certificates. More particularly, PW. 4 -- the Coordinator of the said company had deposed that the deceased were working as Field Supervisor/Field Investigator/Health Investigator and were receiving Rs. 13,500/- including Rs. 3,000/- as Dearness Allowance and in total the deceased were receiving wages of Rs. 16,500/- p.m. and accordingly he has produced Exs. P11 and P16-Working Certificates. Even though P.W. 4 has stated that the deceased were working as Field Investigators and were receiving salary of Rs. 16,500/- p.m., upon considering Exs. P11 and P16-working certificates, these are not salary certificates. These are only documents of working contract assigning as a Field Investigator on contract basis. Therefore, the deceased were not working on permanent nature of job. Upon perusing Exs. P11 and P16-Work Contract documents, it is job of conducting the survey by the said Vimarsh Development Solutions Private Limited and for the purpose of conducting the survey work, the deceased were selected which is purely on contract basis and there is no evidence placed by the appellants/claimants to prove that the nature of job of the deceased is permanent in nature. As and when the survey would be completed then the work contract with the deceased would also be ceased. Only circumstances gathered from the above documentary evidence only proves the deceased were working on a contract basis but not in the nature of permanent job. There is no evidence of work on permanent nature of job. Accordingly, the notional income adopted by the Tribunal at Rs. 8,000/- p.m. is correct. 7. The Tribunal has not awarded compensation under the head of loss of future prospects by adding 40% on their income towards income of the deceased as per the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case supra. The relevant portion of the said judgment is culled out hereunder : "59.3. While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. 59.4. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. 59.4. In case the deceased was self employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 to 50 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component." 8. In the present cases, the deceased were working as Field Investigator on contract basis with the company. Therefore, the deceased were not working on permanent job. As observed at paragraph 59.4 in the judgment of Pranay Sethi's case supra, the age of the deceased Basamma was 28 years and the age of the deceased Roopadevi was 25 years and therefore 40% of income is to be added. As per the age of the deceased Basamma and Roopadevi, appropriate multiplier are 17 and 18 respectively as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 . The deceased were bachelor. Therefore, half of income is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. Therefore, the compensation under the head of loss of dependency is to be recalculated and quantified as under : In MVC No. 427/2015 Rs.8,000 + 3,200 (40% of 8,000) Rs.11,200 Rs.11,200 - 5,600 (50% of 11,200) x 17 x 12 Rs.11,42,400/- In MVC No. 425/2015 Rs.8,000 + 3,200 (40% of 8,000) Rs.11,200 Rs.11,200 - 5,600 (50% of 11,200) x 18 x 12 Rs.12,09,600/- 9. Accordingly, the compensation of Rs. 11,42,400/- in MVC No. 427/2015 and Rs. 12,09,600/- in MVC No. 425/2015 is awarded under the head of loss of dependency. The Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 70,000/- in MVC No. 427/2015 and Rs. 80,000/- in MVC No. 425/2015 under the heads of Funeral Expenses and Transportation of dead body, Loss of love and affection and Loss of Estate. 12,09,600/- in MVC No. 425/2015 is awarded under the head of loss of dependency. The Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 70,000/- in MVC No. 427/2015 and Rs. 80,000/- in MVC No. 425/2015 under the heads of Funeral Expenses and Transportation of dead body, Loss of love and affection and Loss of Estate. The amount of compensation awarded under the conventional heads is on lower side. Therefore, compensation of Rs. 1,10,000/- in MVC No. 427/2015 and Rs. 1,10,000/- in MVC No. 425/2015 is awarded under other conventional heads such as the funeral expenses, conveyance, transportation of dead body, loss of love and affection and loss of estate etc. Thus, in all, the appellants-claimants are entitled for the following compensation : In MVC No. 427/2015 Heads Amount in (Rs.) Towards loss of dependency Rs.11,42,400/- Towards conventional heads Rs.1,10,000/- Total Rs.12,52,400/- In MVC No. 425/2015 Heads Amount in (Rs.) Towards loss of dependency Rs.12,09,600/- Towards conventional heads Rs.1,10,000/- Total Rs.13,19,600/- 10. Thus, the appellants are entitled for total compensation of Rs. 12,52,400/- in MVC No. 427/2015 and Rs. 13,19,600/- in MVC No. 425/2015. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 8,86,000/- in MVC No. 427/2015 and Rs. 9,44,000/- in MVC No. 425/2015 and after deducting these amounts from the above determined total compensation amount, the appellants are entitled for additional compensation amount of Rs. 3,66,400/- (12,52,400 - 8,86,000/-) in MVC No. 427/2015 and Rs. 3,75,600/- (13,19,600-9,44,000) in MVC No. 425/2015. Accordingly, the appellants succeed in part. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order : ORDER The appeals are hereby allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 17.02.2018 passed in MVC No. 427/2015 and MVC No. 425/2015 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & M.A.C.T., Gangavathi is hereby modified. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the appellants are entitled for additional compensation amount of Rs.3,66,400/- in MVC No. 427/2015 and Rs. 3,75,600/- in MVC No. 425/2015 in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal. Office to draw modified award accordingly.