Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 530 (KAR)

Tarabai v. Shivanagouda

2022-04-13

ASHOK S.KINAGI

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is filed by the petitioner under Sec. 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act') challenging the judgment and award dtd. 30/3/2021 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.XIII, at Vijayapura (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in MVC No.297/2017 on the ground of quantum of compensation. 2. Parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. Appellant is petitioner and the respondents are the respondents before the Tribunal. 3. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal are that on 9/9/2016 on Sindagi-Vijayapura road, near Kaggod village, deceased was proceeding on a motorcycle from the side of Vijayapura towards Kaggod village, at that time, the driver of the car No.KA-23/N3371 came from opposite side in high speed, rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle and caused accident. As a result of which, the deceasedSiddangouda fell down and sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The petitioner being the legal heir filed claim petition under Sec. 166 of the Act seeking compensation on account of death of Siddanagouda in the road traffic accident. 4. The first respondent filed the written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that as on the date of accident, the vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 and prays to dismiss the claim petition against respondent No.1. 5. The second respondent/Insurance company filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition and it was contended that the respondent No.1 has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and further contended that the accident has taken place due to negligence of the deceased. Hence, the claim petition is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition. 6. The Tribunal, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed the issues and recorded the evidence. In order to prove the case, the petitioner examined herself as P.W.1 and examined another witness as P.W.2 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P18. The second respondent/insurance company got marked the document as Ex.R1. 7. 6. The Tribunal, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed the issues and recorded the evidence. In order to prove the case, the petitioner examined herself as P.W.1 and examined another witness as P.W.2 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P18. The second respondent/insurance company got marked the document as Ex.R1. 7. The Tribunal after recording the evidence and after considering the material on record allowed the claim petition in part and awarded compensation of Rs.20, 05, 706.00 along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realization and further held that the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation and respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount within 30 days from the date of judgment. 8. Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner/appellant has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the second respondent/Insurance company. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accident is of the year 2016, the petitioner has not produced any income proof. In the absence of income proof, the Tribunal ought to have taken notional income in terms of the chart issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. He further submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side, hence, he prays to allow the appeal. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/Insurance company supports the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for interference and prays to dismiss the appeal. 12. I have perused the records and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. The point that arises for consideration is with regard to quantum of compensation. 13. The occurrence of the accident, involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident and death of the deceased-Siddangouda in the accident are not in dispute. In order to prove that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, the petitioner has produced copy of charge sheet marked as Ex.P9. 13. The occurrence of the accident, involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident and death of the deceased-Siddangouda in the accident are not in dispute. In order to prove that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, the petitioner has produced copy of charge sheet marked as Ex.P9. From perusal of Ex.P9, it is clear that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. 14. Insofar as quantum of compensation is concerned, it is the case of the petitioner that the deceased was working as a security guard and earning Rs.10, 000.00 per month. The petitioner has not tendered any evidence with regard to income of the deceased. In the absence of proof of income, the notional income of the deceased will have to be taken as per the chart provided by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. In terms of the chart, for the accident of the year 2016, the notional income of the deceased will have to be taken at Rs.8, 750.00 as against Rs.8, 000.00 per month taken by the Tribunal. To the aforesaid amount, as the deceased was aged 24 years, 40% of the said amount has to be added on account of future prospects in view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 . Thus, the monthly income comes to Rs.12, 250.00. The deceased was a bachelor, hence, 50% of the said amount is deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and therefore, the monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.6, 125.00. Taking into account the age of the deceased which was 24 years at the time of accident, multiplier of 18 has to be adopted as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 . Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.13, 23, 000.00 (Rs.6, 125.00x12x18) on account of loss of dependency as against Rs.8, 64, 000.00 awarded by the Tribunal. 15. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.13, 23, 000.00 (Rs.6, 125.00x12x18) on account of loss of dependency as against Rs.8, 64, 000.00 awarded by the Tribunal. 15. Further, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 , each petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.40, 000.00 towards loss of consortium. There is only one dependent i.e., mother, hence the compensation towards loss of consortium would be Rs.40, 000.00. In addition, the petitioner/appellant is entitled a sum of Rs.15, 000.00 towards funeral expenses and Rs.15, 000.00 under the head of loss of estate. The deceased was admitted in the hospital for 135 days. The petitioner has produced the medical expenses bill and the Tribunal has awarded medical expenses of Rs.10, 81, 000.00 and awarded attendant charges Rs.30, 000.00 towards diet, food and nourishment. Thus the petitioner is entitled for total compensation of Rs.25, 04, 000.00 as against Rs.20, 05, 706.00 The petitioner is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.4, 98, 294.00. 16. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed in part. ii. The impugned judgment and award dtd. 30/3/2021 in MVC No.297/2017 passed by the Tribunal is modified. iii. The petitioner is entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.4, 98, 294.00 along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. iv. The second respondent/insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount before the Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from date of the receipt of certified copy of this judgment.