Allowed

Smt. Janabai W/O Balasaheb 2 Balaso Jatar v. Bahubali S/O Vrushabh Kalshetty

Karnataka HC15 Nov 2018MFA/101562/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal from Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal against compensation award. High Court enhanced the appellant's compensation by increasing notional income and adjusting conventional heads per Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation awarded: Total Rs.5,45,200 (enhanced dependency Rs.4,75,200 + conventional heads Rs.70,000). Interest @6% p.a.; apportioned to widow; deposit scheme for five years.

Smt. Janabai W/O Balasaheb 2 Balaso Jatar Vs… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2018

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BELLUNKE A.S.

¶8

M.F.A. NO.101562/2018(MV)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. JANABAI W/O BALASAHEB @ BALASO JATAR, AGE : 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: BEDKIHAL, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST : BELAGAVI, PINCODE : 590001.

¶11

SANJAY BALASAHEB @ BALASO JATAR, AGE : 33 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O: BEDKIHAL, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI, PINCODE : 590001.

¶12

UMESH S/O BALASAHEB @ BALASO JATAR, AGE : 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: BEDKIHAL, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST : BELAGAVI, PINCODE : 590001.

¶13

…APPELLANTS

¶14

(BY SRI. UMESH C. AINAPUR, ADV.)

¶15

AND:

¶16

BAHUBALI S/O. VRUSHABH KALSHETTY, AGE : MAJOR, OCC : MAHALAXMI TRANSPORT, R/O: NO.5, GAYATRI APARTMENTS, SAMARTH COLONY, SANGLI, TQ: MIRAJ, DIST : SANGLI, STATE MAHARASHTRA, PINCODE: 416402.

¶17

¶18

FUTURE GENERAL INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, 2^ND FLOOR, KALBURGI LANDMARK OPP: T.B. GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL, DESHPANDE NAGAR, HUBBALLI.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. R.S. ARANI, ADV. FOR R2, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶21

THIS APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.11.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.2122/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE X ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶22

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

This appeal is listed to consider I.A. No.2/2018 seeking early hearing of the appeal. With the consent of learned counsel on both the sides, it is heard finally.

¶25

Appellants herein were claimants in MVC No.2122/2015. They have assailed judgment and award passed by the X Additional District Judge and Member of Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Belagavi (hereinafter referred to as

¶26

¶27

‘Tribunal’ for the sake of convenience) dated 07.11.2017, seeking enhancement of

¶28

compensation as awarded by the Tribunal.

¶29

For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to in terms of their status before the Tribunal.

¶30

Appellants-claimants filed the claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation on account of death of Balasaheb @ Balaso Jatar in a road traffic accident that occurred on 06.08.2015 at 12.45 hours on Miraj Malgaon tar road in front of Sahil Borewell Office within the limits of Subhash Nagar. According to the claimants, one Dundappa Dnanu Jamadade being the driver of the Truck bearing registration No.MH-20/H-6355, drove the said Truck on the said road in a rash and negligent manner, lost control over the vehicle and dashed the said truck from behind against the hind

¶31

¶32

portion of a two wheeler bearing registration No.MH-09/DF-3785. As a result of the said impact, Balasaheb @ Balaso Jatar who was proceeding on the two wheeler fell down and the said truck ran over his body and he died instantaneously at the spot.

¶33

His widow contended, the deceased was 60 years old at the time of occurrence of the accident, he was earning yearly income of Rs.1,50,000/- and contributing the said amount for the maintenance of the family and that on account of his untimely death, they had lost the bread earner of the family. Hence, they filed the claim petition for compensation on various heads.

¶34

In response to the claim petition, the first respondent owner of the vehicle entered appearance through his counsel, but did not file any written statement.

¶35

¶36

The second respondent Insurance

¶37

Company appeared and filed written statement.

¶38

The second respondent admitted the issuance of the insurance policy in favour of the first

¶39

respondent in respect of the offending vehicle; but, the satisfaction of the award was subject to terms and conditions of the Insurance policy. It was also contended that the satisfaction of the award was subject to driver of the vehicle having a valid and effective driving licence. It was further contended that the deceased who was proceeding on the two wheeler abruptly stopped the vehicle without showing any signal or indication and the truck driver was forced to hit

¶40

the hind portion of the two wheeler and that the accident had occurred on account of negligence on the part of the deceased. Therefore, the Insurance Company sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶41

¶42

On the basis of the above pleadings, the

¶43

Tribunal framed the following issues for its

¶44

consideration:

¶45

Whether the petitioners prove that, on 06.08.2015 at 12.45 hours at Subhas Nagar, on Miraj-Malegaon Road, near Water Tank, in front of Sahil Bore well Office, the driver of Truck Bearing No.MH-26/H-6355 drove it in a rash and negligent manner so as to endangering human life and without following the traffic rules and lost control over it and dashed to hind side of Honda Active Bearing No.MH-09/DF3785 in which the petitioner was proceeding and he fell down and the said truck ran over the deceased and thereby caused the accident and he died on the spot?

¶46

Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, for what amount and from whom?

¶47

To what award?

¶48

In support of their case, the first

¶49

claimant Smt. Janabai examined herself as PW1

¶50

and she produced nine documents, which were

¶51

marked as Ex.P1 to P9(a). The respondents did not lead any evidence before the Tribunal. On the

¶52

¶53

basis of the evidence on record, the Tribunal answered issue No.1 in the affirmative and issue No.2 partly in the affirmative and awarded compensation of Rs.4,49,000/- (wrongly typed as 4,24,000/-) with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization. The Tribunal also issued direction with regard to apportionment and deposit of the compensation.

¶54

Not being satisfied with the award, the claimants have preferred this appeal seeking additional compensation.

¶55

We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondentInsurance Company and perused the material on record.

¶56

Notice to the first respondent has been dispensed with.

¶57

¶58

Appellants’ counsel contended that

¶59

award of the compensation on the head of loss of dependency is meager. He submitted that the deceased was carrying on agricultural operations and he had land measuring 01 acre 16 guntas 07 anna and he was also engaged in milk vending business. But, the Tribunal has assessed his notional income at Rs.6,000/- per month which is meager and on the lower side. He submitted that since the accident occurred in the year 2015, even in respect of an unskilled employee, normally, this Court would assess the notional income at Rs.8,000/- per month. Therefore, this Court may assess the notional income of the deceased over and above Rs.8,000/-. He next contended that the latest judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others reported in AIR 2017 SC 515 7 must be applied to the present case and having regard to the deceased

¶60

¶61

being 60 years of age at the time of accident, at least 10% of the income must be added towards future prospects and in so doing, the amount of compensation on the head of loss of dependency would be enhanced. He further submitted that the Tribunal was not right in deducting 50% of the compensation towards the personal expenses of the deceased on the premise that the claimant Nos.2 and 3 were major at the time of the accident and were not really dependent on the deceased. He submitted that only 1/3rd of the amount ought to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and in so doing, the compensation on the head of loss of dependency may be enhanced.

¶62

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance company contended that the Insurance company has satisfied the award. Even according to the latest dictum of the Hon’ble

¶63

¶64

Supreme Court, the amount of compensation to be awarded under conventional heads comprising of loss of consortium, loss of estate, loss of love and affection, transportation of dead body and funeral expenses cannot exceed Rs.70,000/-. In the instant case, a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- has been awarded which is a bonus for claimants and therefore, the award need not be interfered with. He further submitted that the Tribunal rightly assessed the notional income of the deceased @ Rs.6,000/- per month and has rightly deducted 50%, as it is really only claimant No.1 who is in need of compensation as she was the only person dependent on the deceased other claimants being major sons of the deceased. Therefore, there is no merit in this appeal.

¶65

Having heard learned counsel for respective parties and on perusal of the material

¶66

¶67

on record, the following points arise for our

¶68

consideration:

¶69

i. Whether the claimants are entitled to additional compensation in this appeal?

¶70

ii. If so, what order?

¶71

The appellants-claimants have

¶72

established before the Tribunal that the deceased Balasaheb @ Balaso died in a road Traffic accident that occurred on 06.08.2015 on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of Truck bearing registration No.MH-26/H-6355. The Tribunal while considering the case of the claimants, awarded compensation of Rs.4,49,000/(wrongly typed as 4,24,000/-) in the following

¶73

manner :

¶74

Loss of dependency	Rs.	3,24,000/-
Loss of consortium	Rs.	50,000/-
Loss to the estate	Rs.	25,000/-
Transportation of dead	Rs.	25,000/-
b d Funeral expenses	Rs.	25,000/-
Total	Rs.	4,49,000/-

¶75

¶76

The first contention of learned counsel

¶77

for the appellants is with regard to the award of compensation on the head of loss of dependency being meager. It is unnecessary to reiterate the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants and respondents on this aspect of the matter. In the circumstances, we deem it proper to enhance the notional monthly income of the deceased from Rs.6,000/- to Rs.8,000/-. By applying the dictum of the of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi , we add 10% to the said amount towards future prospects, in which event, the notional monthly income would be Rs.8,800/-. We think that there is considerable force in the arguments of learned counsel for the Insurance company who has contended that in reality it is only appellant No.1, the widow of the deceased who was depending on the deceased and that appellant Nos.2 and 3 being major sons are having

¶78

¶79

their own occupations and earnings. In the circumstances, we deem it proper, we confirm the deduction of 50% of the said amount as has been done by the Tribunal. Therefore, the monthly income would now be Rs.4,400/-. The annual income has to be calculated by applying multiplier of 9 since the deceased was 60 years having regard to the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarala Verma V/s. Delhi Corporation (2009

¶80

ACJ 1298) in which event, the compensation on the head of loss of dependency would be Rs.4,75,200/-.

¶81

In this regard, reliance could also be placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance

¶82

Company Ltd., V/s. Vinish Jain and others in Civil Appeal No.2445/2018 (SLP No.13933/2017), in the case relating to the death of one A.P. Jain.

¶83

¶84

The Tribunal in the instant case has awarded Rs.1,25,000/towards conventional

¶85

heads, but, in view of the latest dictum in Pranay Sethi , compensation on conventional heads ought to be Rs.70,000/- only. Therefore, we award compensation on the head of loss of consortium, loss of estate, transportation of dead body, funeral expenses together at Rs.70,000/-. Thus, the total compensation is Rs.5,45,200/- (Rs.4,75,200/- + Rs.70,000/-). The enhanced compensation of Rs.1,21,200/- shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realization. The enhanced amount is apportioned to appellant No.1 only, the widow of the deceased, as the Tribunal has already apportioned the compensation of Rs.4,49,000/- equally between the three claimants. Out of the enhanced compensation of Rs.1,21,200/a sum of Rs.1,00,000/shall be deposited in any

¶86

nationalized bank or post office for an initial

¶87

¶88

period of five years. Appellant No.1 shall be entitled to interest on the said deposit. Balance amount shall be released to appellant No.1. The appeal is allowed in part.

¶89

Insurance company shall deposit the enhanced compensation along with the

¶90

proportionate interest within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment.

¶91

Parties to bear their respective costs.

¶92

In view of the disposal of the appeal, I.A. No.2/2018 also stands disposed.

¶93

Office to return the lower Court records to the Tribunal forthwith.

¶94

Sd/-