Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1131 (KAR)

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sridevi

2022-09-01

ANIL B.KATTI, H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. The present respondent No.1 as a claimant had instituted a claim petition under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the 'M.V. Act') in MVC No.41/2017 before the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Lingasugur (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the 'Tribunal') seeking compensation of a sum of Rs.28,00,000.00 towards the alleged death of her husband one Sri Satyanarayana in a road traffic accident said to have been occurred on 23/7/2015. 2. The summary of the contention of the claimant before the Tribunal was that on 23/7/2015, while her husband deceased Satyanarayana was going on his motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-33/G-2908 along with a pillion rider on Lingasugur-Gurugunta road, near Goudur cross, Gurugunta, the respondent No.1 in the claim petition who is the respondent No.2 herein, being the driver of the motor vehicle TATA ACE bearing Reg.No.KA-36/A-317 coming from the opposite direction, driving his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the motor cycle of the deceased, due to which road traffic accident, the rider Satyanarayana sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to it before taking him to the hospital. 3. Before the Tribunal, respondent Nos.1 and 2 were placed exparte. The respondent No.3 appeared through their counsel and contested the matter. The claimant got herself examined as PW-1 and got marked the documents from Exs.P-1 to P-15. From the respondents' side two witness were examined as RW-1 and RW-2 and the documents from Exs.R-1 to R-8 were exhibited. 4. After recording the evidence led before it and hearing both side, the Tribunal by its judgment dtd. 1/2/2019, awarded compensation under the following heads with the sum shown against them: 1. Loss of dependency Rs.16,89,638/- 2. Loss of love and affection Rs.50,000/- 3. Transportation & funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- 4. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- 5. Loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- Total Rs.18,09,638/- Aggrieved by the same, the respondent No.3 in the claim petition in MVC No.41/2017, has preferred the present appeal. 5. The respondent No.1 herein is being represented by her counsel. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 though have been served, but have remained absent. 6. The Tribunal records were called for and the same are placed before this Court. 7. Though the matter was listed today for admission, however, with the consent from both side, the matter is taken up for its final disposal. 8. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 though have been served, but have remained absent. 6. The Tribunal records were called for and the same are placed before this Court. 7. Though the matter was listed today for admission, however, with the consent from both side, the matter is taken up for its final disposal. 8. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be henceforth referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal. 9. Heard arguments from both sides. Perused the memorandum of appeal, impugned judgment and award and the Tribunal records placed before us. 10. The only point that arises for our consideration is: Whether the appellant has made out grounds to allow the appeal? 11. The only contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal has deducted the personal expenses at 1/3rd instead of 1/2, though the dependant is wife alone. He further contended that the compensation granted under other heads, more particularly, towards loss of love and affection also deserves to be set aside. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that it is after appreciating the evidence in their proper perspective, the Tribunal since has awarded a reasonable compensation, the same would not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court. 13. The evidence of the claimant who got herself examined as PW-1 coupled with the certified copies of FIR, complaint, charge sheet, inquest panchanama, scene of offence panchanama, seizure panchanama marked at Exs.P-1 to P-6 go to show that the alleged road traffic accident involving the motor cycle of the deceased and TATA ACE vehicle being driven by the respondent No.2 herein were the vehicles involved in the road traffic accident which occurred on 23/7/2015 near Goudur cross of Lingasugur " " Gurugunta road. Further, the evidence of PW-1 coupled with the wound certificate at Ex.P-7, the postmortem report at Ex.P-8, the inquest panchanama at Ex.P-4, the IMV report at Ex.P-9 would further go to show that in the said accident deceased Satyanarayana, who undisputedly is the husband of the claimant, sustained injuries and succumbed to it. Further, the evidence of PW-1 coupled with the wound certificate at Ex.P-7, the postmortem report at Ex.P-8, the inquest panchanama at Ex.P-4, the IMV report at Ex.P-9 would further go to show that in the said accident deceased Satyanarayana, who undisputedly is the husband of the claimant, sustained injuries and succumbed to it. Though from the respondents' side two witnesses i.e., RW-1 and RW-2 were examined, however, they could not shaken the evidence of PW-1 and overcome the documents from Exs.P-1 to P-9 which evidence of PW-1 and exhibits from Exs.P-1 to P-9 go to show that the said accident was mainly due to rash and negligent driving of the TATA ACE vehicle by its driver i.e., respondent No.2 herein. However, there was a contribution of the deceased rider of motor cycle also to some extent. It is appreciating these evidence in their proper perspective, the Tribunal has rightly held that the contribution of the deceased Satyanarayana rider of the motor cycle was 20% and that of the driver of the TATA ACE motor vehicle was 80%. The learned counsel for the appellant fairly concedes that he would not dispute the said finding of the Tribunal fixing the liability of the insured vehicle i.e., the TATA ACE motor vehicle at 80%. 14. The only contention of the appellant is regarding the quantification of the compensation which according to the appellant herein ought to have been of a reduced sum but not as high as the one fixed by the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the appellant fairly concedes that he would not deny or dispute the age of the deceased as well as the quantification of his income as assessed by the Tribunal which has taken the age of the deceased as 50 years and the income at Rs.22,000.00 per month. The inquest panchanama and postmortem report at Exs.P-4 and P-8 also supports the view that the age of the deceased Satyanarayana was 50 years as on the date of the accident. The RTC extracts at Ex.P-13 supports the contention of PW-1 that her husband was doing agricultural work. Her evidence further shows that he was also getting an income out of harvestor machine. It is considering both oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.22,000.00 per month. Since the said income has not been seriously disputed, the same is retained by us. Her evidence further shows that he was also getting an income out of harvestor machine. It is considering both oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.22,000.00 per month. Since the said income has not been seriously disputed, the same is retained by us. 15. Admittedly, the claimant in the Tribunal who is respondent No.1 herein, is the sole dependant upon the income of the deceased. As such, the deduction towards personal expenses should have been taken at 50% by the Tribunal. However, without attributing any reasons for taking it at reduced percentage which is at 1/3rd of the total income, the Tribunal has deducted a sum of Rs.7,333.00 towards personal expenses. The said deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses being not correct and it ought to have been 50%, the net contribution of the deceased to the family i.e., to the claimant would be only a sum of Rs.11,000.00 after deducting 50% of Rs.11,000.00 from his total income of Rs.22,000.00. On the said amount of Rs.11,000.00, 10% is to be added towards loss of future prospects as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , since the deceased was a self employed person and falling within the age group of 50 to 60 years. Thus, the total contribution of the deceased towards the family would be Rs.11,000.00 + Rs.1,100.00 = Rs.12,100.00. Admittedly, the proper multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased which is 50 years, is 12'. Thus, towards loss of dependency, the claimant is entitled to Rs.12,100.00 x 12 months x 12' multiplier = Rs.17,42,400.00. After deducting 20% towards contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, the remaining 80% would come to Rs.13,93,920.00. The said amount would be the appropriate compensation under the head of compensation towards loss of dependency. Under the conventional heads, the claimant is entitled towards loss of consortium, funeral expenses, loss of estate at Rs.40,000.00 + Rs.15,000.00 + Rs.15,000.00 = Rs.70,000.00. Thus, in total, the claimant (respondent No.1 herein) is entitled for a sum of Rs.14,63,920.00. Since the claimant is granted with the compensation under conventional heads, no separate compensation towards loss of love and affection need to be given. Thus, in total, the claimant (respondent No.1 herein) is entitled for a sum of Rs.14,63,920.00. Since the claimant is granted with the compensation under conventional heads, no separate compensation towards loss of love and affection need to be given. As such, the compensation of Rs.50,000.00 awarded by the Tribunal under the head of loss of love and affection is not to be considered. Thus, in total, the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.14,63,920.00. Since the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.18,09,638.00 is on the higher side, only to that extent bringing it to a reasonable compensation, the interference of this Court in the impugned judgment is warranted. The rest of the order under the judgment including the awarding of the interest at the rate of 9% on the compensation amount also does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award dtd. 1/2/2019 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Lingasugur in MVC No.41/2017 is modified to the extent that the entitlement of the claimant for compensation which is fixed at Rs.18,09,638.00 by the Tribunal is modified, reduced and fixed at Rs.14,63,920.00. The rest of the order regarding awarding the interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation remains un-altered. The order made by the Tribunal regarding the deposit of the amount also remains unaltered. Draw a modified award accordingly. The amount deposited by the appellant, if any, in the Registry in this appeal, be transferred to the concerned Tribunal without delay. Registry to transmit a copy of this judgment along with the Tribunal records to the concerned Tribunal immediately.