Partly allowed

Parvati v. Mahadev Maruti Patil

Karnataka HC21 Jan 2019MFA/101092/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award, enhancing the compensation from Rs.9,81,000 to Rs.15,78,000. The court recalculated the deceased's income applying a 40% future prospects factor as per precedents and adjusted awards for consortium and funeral expenses.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.9,81,000 to Rs.15,78,000 with interest at 6% per annum; deposits ordered for minor and widow.

Parvati Vs Mahadev Maruti Patil — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2019

¶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.101092/2015 (MV)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. PARVATI W/O. MAHADEV PATIL, AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,

¶11

MASTER NINGAPPA, S/O. MAHADEV PATIL, AGE: 5 YEARS, OCC: NIL, SINCE MINOR R/BY THE APPELLANT NO.1 MOTHER,

¶12

SMT. KRISHNABAI, W/O. NINGAPPA PATIL, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,

¶13

ALL RESIDENT OF AT: BRAHMALING GALLI, BADARWADI VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST.: BELAGAVI. ... APPELLANTS

¶14

(BY SRI VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVODATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

SHRI MAHADEV MARUTI PATIL, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: NOT KNOWN

¶17

¶18

R/O. MANERA CHAWL ROOM.1, BOODHA VIHAR MARG, DOMGRIPADA THANM VOGHABIL, THANE-MAHARASTRA-400615

¶19

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED ABOVE BELLAD MOTOR CYCLE, SHOWROOM GOKUL ROAD. ... RESPONDENTS

¶20

(NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.1 : SERVED) BY SRI RAVINDRA R. MANE, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶21

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.02.2015, PASSED IN MVC.NO.353/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-I 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, BELLUNKE A.S. J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

Though this appeal is listed for orders, with the consent of learned counsel on both the sides, it is heard finally.

¶25

This appeal is filed by the claimants

¶26

seeking enhancement of compensation by assailing judgment and award passed in MVC.No.353/2014

¶27

¶28

by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-I & Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Belagavi, (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal” for short) dated 09.02.2015.

¶29

For the sake of convenience, the parties

¶30

are referred to in terms of their status before the Tribunal.

¶31

Briefly stated the facts are that, on 28.01.2014 at about 17.15 hours, the husband of the first petitioner, namely Sri Mahadev Ningappa Patil was proceeding from Kamataga village towards Badarwadi on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA.22/EF.5541 at a moderate speed and by following traffic rules and regulations on the left side of the road. When he reached Khanapur-Belagavi road at Tivoli cross of N.H.4 road, the driver of the truck bearing registration No.MH.04/CP.9430 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent and in a

¶32

¶33

zigzag manner without following the traffic rules and regulations, so as to endanger human life and lost control over the truck and dashed to the motorcycle of Mahadev Ningappa Patil. Due to the said impact, Mahadev Ningappa Patil fell down and sustained fatal injuries and died. According to the claimants prior to the accident, deceased Mahadev was hale and healthy, he was aged about 26 years, working as a Mason and earning Rs.12,000/- per month. The deceased was owning agricultural lands at Badarwadi village and was personally cultivating the said lands and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. The deceased was contributing his entire earnings for the maintenance of his family. Petitioner No.1 is the wife, petitioner No.2 is the minor son and petitioner No.3 is the mother of the deceased Mahadev and they were totally depending upon the income of the deceased. Therefore, petitioners had

¶34

¶35

filed a claim petition claiming compensation on account of death of deceased Mahadev.

¶36

In response to the service of notice by the Tribunal, the first respondent had not appeared and he was placed ex-parte. Respondent No.2 insurer of the offending vehicle appeared through its counsel and filed his statement of objections.

¶37

Respondent No.2 insurer of the vehicle bearing registration No.MH.04/CP.9430 contended that the accident had not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver and the accident in question took place due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle i.e., due to the deceased himself. Respondent No.2 specifically contended that the driver of the truck was driving the said vehicle slowly, on the left side of the road by observing the traffic rules and regulations. The rider of the motor cycle i.e., deceased was not

¶38

¶39

holding driving licence. Further it was contended that liability of respondent No.2 is subject to terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

¶40

On the basis of rival pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues for its consideration:

¶41

“1) Whether the petitioners prove that on 28/01/2014 at about 17.15 hours, on Belagavi-Khanapur NH-4A road, at Tivoli Cross, while the deceased was proceeding on motorcycle bearing No.KA.22-EF-5541, at that time, the driver of truck bearing No.MH.04CP.9430 came in high speed and in a rash and negligent manner from opposite direction and dashed to the motorcycle of deceased and caused and as a result of it, said deceased sustained fatal injuries and died as alleged?

¶42

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

¶43

¶44

3) What Order or award?”

¶45

In support of the contentions of the claimants, petitioner No.1 got examined herself as PW.1 and produced 20 documents which were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.20. Respondent No.2 – Insurance Company examined two witnesses as R.Ws.1 and 2 and produced two documents which were marked as Exs.R.1 and R.2.

¶46

On the basis of the evidence on record, the Tribunal answered Issue No.1 in the affirmative and awarded compensation of Rs.9,81,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit and accordingly issue Nos.2 and 3 has been answered. Not being satisfied with the award of the Tribunal, the claimants have preferred this appeal.

¶47

We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent

¶48

¶49

insurance company and perused the material available on record.

¶50

The grievance of the appellants is that, the deceased Mahadev was earning Rs.12,000/per month from Masonry and Rs.5,000/- per month from agriculture. The appellants have produced the RTCs as per Ex.P.13 to Ex.P.20. But the Tribunal without considering the same, assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month, which is on the lower side. The compensation towards loss of dependency has been wrongly assessed by the Tribunal and it is liable to be enhanced. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards future prospects. The Tribunal ought to have granted 50% future prospects to the self employed person. The claimants have lost their only bread winner of their family. It is further contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal

¶51

¶52

towards loss of love and affection, loss of estate and transportation of dead body and funeral expenses are on the lower side. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellants prayed for enhancement of compensation and interest also to be enhanced by allowing this appeal.

¶53

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/insurance company contended that the award is just and proper, hence, it would not call for any interference and sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶54

Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, in so far as the rash and negligent act of the driver of the vehicle in question and the liability to satisfy the award in question, are not disputed in this appeal. Therefore, the only point that would arise for our consideration is as follows:

¶55

¶56

1) Whether the appellants/claimants are entitled for enhancement of the compensation? If yes, what is the quantum to which they are entitled?

¶57

So far as the liability of the second respondent is concerned, it is not in dispute. The respondent insurance company has not filed any cross objection questioning liability, quantum or the rash and negligent act on the part of the deceased Mahadev or the first respondent. No specific grounds are urged before the Tribunal or before this Court seriously with regard to violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy by the first respondent, who is the owner of the offending vehicle. No rebuttal evidence has been led by any of the respondents.

¶58

Therefore, we have examined the impugned judgment and award with regard to the quantum of compensation assessed by the Tribunal and its legality and correctness.

¶59

¶60

The deceased Mahadev was admittedly aged about 26 years as on the date of accident. The multiplier applicable is “17”. The Tribunal has also applied the same multiplier. Therefore, it does not call for any interference.

¶61

It is contended that the husband of appellant No.1 was a Mason. The claimants have contended that, the deceased was earning Rs.12,000/- per month from Masonry work and Rs.5,000/- per month from Agriculture. However, in the absence of documentary evidence, having regard to the date of accident and the cost of living, the value of the money then etc., we find that the income assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side, because even the notional income that is considered in the Lok Adalath is taken into consideration. Therefore, we assess the income of the deceased at Rs.7,500/- per month.

¶62

¶63

The Tribunal does not appear to have taken the aspect of future prospects on the income of the deceased. Having regard to the age of the deceased, 40% future prospects on the monthly income of the deceased would have to be calculated. As per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2017 ACJ 2700 (National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others), the appellants are entitled to 40% of monthly income towards future prospects in this case. The notional monthly income of the deceased would then be Rs.7,500/+ Rs.3,000/-. The total income of the deceased including future prospects would be Rs.10,500/-. After deducting 1/3^rd from the income of the deceased towards personal expenses, the net income of the deceased would be Rs.7,000/- that is to be multiplied by 12 and “17” multiplier. The appellants/claimants are entitled to compensation

¶64

¶65

towards loss of dependency at Rs.14,28,000/(7,000x12x17=14,28,000).

¶66

The Tribunal had awarded Rs.1,00,000/under the head of loss of

¶67

consortium to the first appellant, being the wife of the deceased Mahadev; Rs.25,000/- towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate.

¶68

Therefore we are inclined to award a sum of Rs.40,000/- under the head of loss of consortium to the first appellant; Rs.40,000/each to appellant Nos.2 and 3 under the head of parental consortium; Rs.15,000/towards transportation of dead body and funeral expense and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. The appellants - claimants are entitled to total compensation as follows:

¶69

Sl.	Particulars	Amount in
No.		Rs.
1	Towardsloss ofdependency.	14,28,000/-
2	Loss of consortium to the first	40,000/-

¶70

¶71

	appellant– wife ofthe deceased.
3	Loss of consortium to appellant	80,000/-
	Nos.2and 3 (40,000x2=80,000)
4	Towards transportation of dead body andfuneralexpenses.	15,000/-
5	Towards loss of estate	15,000/-
	Total	15,78,000/-

¶72

Hence, for the above said reasons, we answer point No.1 raised for determination partly in the affirmative. We hold that the appellants are entitled for enhancement of compensation as stated above.

¶73

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part.

¶74

The compensation is enhanced from Rs.9,81,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal to Rs.15,78,000/- (Rupees Fifteen lakh Seventyeight thousand only) in this appeal.

¶75

The enhanced compensation of Rs.5,97,000/shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realization.

¶76

¶77

The enhanced compensation shall be

¶78

deposited within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Judgment.

¶79

The enhanced compensation shall be

¶80

apportioned between appellants in the ratio of 40:40:20 respectively.

¶81

75% of the enhanced compensation awarded to the first appellant-widow of the deceased shall be deposited in any Post Office or in any Nationalized Bank for an initial period of ten years. She shall be entitled to draw periodical interest on the said deposit. The balance compensation shall be released to her after due identification.

¶82

The entire compensation with proportionate interest awarded to the minor son shall be deposited in any Post Office or in any Nationalized Bank until he attains the age of majority.

¶83

¶84

The enhanced compensation awarded to the third appellant-mother of the deceased shall be released to her after due identification.

¶85

Parties to bear their respective costs.

¶86

Office to return records to the concerned

Tribunal forthwith.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

EM/-

Parvati v. Mahadev Maruti Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parvati v. Mahadev Maruti Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinaykumar S/O Suresh Varada Vs Karnataka Examinatins Authority

Ujjappa Hiregoudar Son of Basappa Vs N. Siddeshwara

Smt. Bharati W/O Vishnu Dani Vs Shri. Shashidhar Madyal

Vidhya W/O Dattatraya Desai, Vs Rajendra Tukaram Chavan

Kumar Kausar D/O. Saifuddin Shaikh @ Jatkar, Vs M/S. Cargo Motors (Rajasthan) Pvt. Ltd.

Smt. Veeramallamma, W/O. Late K. Basavraj, Vs Kareppa, S/O. Basappa