Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 760 (KAR)

S. Bharathi v. Ranganatha K. P.

2022-06-17

B.VEERAPPA, K.S.HEMALEKHA

body2022
JUDGMENT K.S. Hemalekha, J. - This appeal is preferred by the claimants, who are the wife, child and parents of the deceased Ramesh assailing the judgment and award dated 16/05/2020, passed in MVC. No. 840/2018 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hosadurga ("the Tribunal" for short) seeking enhancement of compensation, whereby the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 49,77,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. 2. The claimants filed the claim petition MVC. No. 840/2018 seeking compensation of Rs. 89,00,000/- on account of death of one Ramesh who died in a road traffic accident that occurred on 29/01/2018 at 6.00 p.m. when the deceased was proceeding on Honda motorcycle bearing registration No. KA-16/EH-7026 as a pillion rider, when he reached near APMC gate at Alankar bar on Huliyaru-Hosadurga Road, the rider of another motorcycle bearing registration No. KA-16/EJ-0519 rode the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased's motorcycle, due to the impact the deceased Ramesh fell down and sustained grievous injuries and on 25/05/2018 he succumbed to the injuries. 3. It is the contention of the claimants that the deceased was hale and healthy at the time of accident and was aged about 35 years, was earning Rs. 50,000/- per month as he was working as a conductor and was also doing agricultural work. The claimants are solely dependent upon the income of the deceased and hence, sought for compensation. 4. In pursuance of the notice issued by the Tribunal, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 appeared, but respondent No. 1 did not choose to file any objection. Respondent No. 2 insurance company filed objections contending that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of the offending motorcycle (No. KA 15/EJ 0519) and the rider did not possess valid and effective driving license as on the date of the accident and as such, the owner of the vehicle violated the terms of the policy and as such, sought to absolve the liability. 5. The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings framed the following three issues: "1. 5. The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings framed the following three issues: "1. Whether petitioners prove that deceased Ramesh succumbed to injuries in RTA that occurred on 29/01/2018 at 6-00 P.M. at APMC gate near Alankar Bar on Hosadurga-Huliyar main road in Hosadurga Town, when deceased was riding on Hero Shine motor cycle bearing No. KA-16-EH-7026, due to rash and negligent riding of motor cycle bearing No. KA-16-EJ-0519 by its rider? 2. Whether the petitioners prove that they are legal heirs of deceased Ramesh? 3. Whether petitioners are entitled for the compensation? If so, to what extent and form whom? 4. What order or award?" 6. In order to substantiate the contention of the claimants, claimant No. 1, the wife of the deceased examined herself as PW. 1 and got marked 22 documents as Exs. P-1 to P-22. On the other hand, respondent No. 2 examined Dr. Chaitra as RW. 2 and technician of Max Hospital, Shimoga as RW. 2 and got marked Exs. R-1 and R-2. 7. The Tribunal on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle bearing registration No. KA 15/EJ 0519 by its rider and also held that the claimants have proved that they are the legal heirs of the deceased Ramesh and fastened the liability on the insurance company awarding compensation of Rs. 49,77,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from petition till the date of deposit. 8. Being unsatisfied with the award of compensation by the Tribunal, the present appeal is preferred by the claimants. No appeal is preferred by the insurance company. 9. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No. 2/insurance company and perused the material on record. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Shivakumarappa T.C. would contend that the compensation arrived by the Tribunal under the head loss of dependency is contrary to the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation [ (2009)6 SCC 121 ] (Sarla Verma) and National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others [ 2017 ACJ 2700 ] (Pranay Sethi) as the Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd towards the personal expenses without considering that the dependents are four in number, who are the wife, child and aged parents of the deceased. Pranay Sethi and others [ 2017 ACJ 2700 ] (Pranay Sethi) as the Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd towards the personal expenses without considering that the dependents are four in number, who are the wife, child and aged parents of the deceased. It is also contended that the award of compensation under the conventional heads is much on the lower side and sought to allow the appeal by enhancing the compensation. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the insurance company, Sri B. Pradeep, would contend that deduction by the Tribunal towards personal expenses to the extent of 1/3rd is just and proper as the dependents are three in number and the father of the deceased cannot be termed as a dependent upon the deceased and would contend that the award of compensation by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is, "Whether the appellants/claimants have made out any case for enhancement in the facts and circumstances of the present case?" 13. The date, time and occurrence of accident is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. KA-16/EJ-0519 as is evident from Ex. P-1 the FIR, EX. P-8 Charge sheet. The only dispute is with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 14. The Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased as per the salary certificate showing the gross salary of the deceased as Rs. 20,726/- per month. The claimants though contended that the deceased was earning Rs. 50,000/- per month, other than producing Ex. P-17 the RTCs of the land measuring 2 acres 6 guntas of land, no other material is forthcoming to show that the deceased was earning Rs. 50,000/- per month apart from the salary received by him as conductor in KSRTC to the extent of Rs. 20,726/- per month. In light of the documents at Ex. P-14 and P-17, the Tribunal was justified in taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 21,000/- per month. Taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 50,000/- per month apart from the salary received by him as conductor in KSRTC to the extent of Rs. 20,726/- per month. In light of the documents at Ex. P-14 and P-17, the Tribunal was justified in taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 21,000/- per month. Taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 21,000/- per month, adding 50% towards future prospects as per the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi and deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses as the deceased was married and the number of dependents were four in number in light of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation [ (2009)6 SCC 121 ] (Saria Verma), though the learned counsel for the insurance company contended that the father of the deceased Shankarappa is not dependent on the deceased and as such, contended that personal expenses to be deducted is one-third and not one-fourth. This contention is contrary to the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma stated supra has held there in that if the deceased was married and number of dependents are three to four in number, the deduction towards personal expenses is 1/4th. Accordingly, deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses is justifiable. Considering the age of the deceased as 35 years, in light of the admitted fact, the multiplier applicable is 16. Thus, the income of the deceased that would be arrived at is (21,000 + 50% future prospects amounting to Rs. 10,500/- (as per Pranay Sethi) deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses (as per Sarla Verma) = 23,625). Taking income of the deceased as Rs. 23,625 x 12 x 16, the claimants are entitled for Rs. 45,60,000/- under the head loss of dependency. 15. In view of the dictum of the Apex Court United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others [ AIR 2020 SC 3076 ] (Satinder Kaur) and Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram & Others [ 2018 ACJ 2782 ] (Magma General Insurance Company Ltd.), as the claimants/dependents are four in number, they are entitled for 40,000 each amounts to Rs. 1,60,000/- under the head loss of estate and towards conveyance and funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- each. The award of compensation under the head medical expenses to the extent of Rs. 8,50,000/- is undisturbed. 1,60,000/- under the head loss of estate and towards conveyance and funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- each. The award of compensation under the head medical expenses to the extent of Rs. 8,50,000/- is undisturbed. Accordingly, the point framed for consideration is answered partly in the affirmative and the claimants are entitled for just and proper compensation as under: Loss of dependency Rs.45,36,000/- Medical expenses and hospital expenses Rs. 8,50,000/- Loss of consortium(40,000 x 4) Rs. 1,60,000/- Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- Transportation and funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs.55,76,000/- 16. The claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs. 55,76,000/- as against Rs. 49,77,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The claimants are entitled for an enhanced compensation of Rs. 5,99,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 17. In the result, we pass the following: ORDER (i) The Miscellaneous First Appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is hereby modified. The appellants/claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs. 55,76,000/- as against Rs. 49,77,000/-. (iii) The enhanced compensation of Rs. 5,99,000/- shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization (iv) Respondent No. 2/insurance company shall deposit the enhanced compensation within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment with proportionate interest. (v) The Registry is directed to return the trial Court records forthwith. (vi) Office is directed to draw the award accordingly. No order as to costs.