Partly allowed

The Divisional Manager, National v. Sunitha W/O J. Naveenkumar @ Naveen

Karnataka HC22 Feb 2021MFA/100891/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Fatal motor-accident compensation was enhanced in three claims while liability remained with the Swift car's owner and insurer. The court dismissed the insurer's appeals and partly allowed the claimants' appeals, revising dependency compensation and conventional heads and awarding interest on the enhancement.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation in all three claims with 6% annual interest from petition till realization; insurer directed to deposit the entire compensation within six weeks of receipt of the certified copy.

The Divisional Manager, National Vs Sunitha W/O J… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶8

MFA NO.100891/2015 C/W

¶9

MFA NOS.100336/2015, 100629/2015, 100630/2015, 100892/2015 & 100893/2015 (MV)

¶10

IN MFA NO.100891 OF 2015

¶11

BETWEEN

¶12

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. DIVISIONAL OFFICE 1 FLOOR BALAGUNDI COMPLEX STATION ROAD, GULBARGA J. NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. REGIONAL OFFICE, II FLOOR ARIHANT PLAZA, KUSUGAL ROAD KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI - 23

¶13

…APPELLANT

¶14

(BY SMT. ANUSHA V SANGAMI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND

¶16

SMT. SUNITHA W/O J. NAVEENKUMAR @ NAVEEN AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD

¶17

¶18

MASTER AHIL S/O J. NAVEENKUMAR @ NAVEEN AGE: 17 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT

¶19

KUM. SRICHANDANA D/O J. NAVEENKUMAR @ NAVEEN AGE: 16 YEARS, OCC.STUDENT RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3 ARE MINIRS REPRESENTED BY THEIR MINOR GUARDIAN NATURAL MOTHER I.E., RESPONDENT NO.1

¶20

SMT. SEETHRATNAM W/O VENKATAKRISHNARAO AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: NIL ALL ARE R/O MARALANAHALLI TALUK: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL

¶21

KOLLI SRIDEVI W/O KOLLI SUDHAKAR AGE:35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE LEGAL HEIRS OF KIOLLI SUDHAKAR OWENR OF SWIFT CAR NO.KA-37/M-3108 R/O MARALANAHALLI TALUK: GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. B. SHARANABASAWA, ADVOCATE)

¶24

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.11.2014, PASSED IN MVC NO.129/2013, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MEMBER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, GANGAVATHI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.10,42,800/- ALONG WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALISATION.

¶25

IN MFA NO.100336 OF 2015

¶26

BETWEEN

¶27

SMT. SUNITHA W/O LATE J. NAVEENKUMAR @ NAVEEN AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD

¶28

MASTER AHIL S/O LATE J. NAVEENKUMAR @ NAVEEN

¶29

¶30

AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS OCC: STUDENT

¶31

KUMARI SRICHANDANA D/O LATE J. NAVEENKUMAR @ NAVEEN AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT 4. SMT. SEETHRATNAM W/O LATE VENKATAKRISHNARAO AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, OCC: NIL ALL ARE R/O MARALANAHALLI TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL APPELLANTS NO.2 AND 3 BEING MINORS REP. BY THEIR NATURAL MOTHER GUARDIAN SMT. SUNITA W/O LATE J.NAVEENKUMAR @ NAVEEN I.E., APPELLANT NO.1 …APPELLANTS

¶32

(BY SRI B.SHARANABASAWA, ADVOCATE) AND

¶33

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. DIVISIONAL OFFICE, I FLOOR BALAGUNDI COMPLEX STATION ROAD, GULBARGA TQ. & DIST. GULBARGA

¶34

KOLLI SRIDEVI W/O LATE KOLLI SUDHAKAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE (OWNER OF SWIFT CAR NO.KA-37/M-3108) R/O MARALANAHALLI TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL …RESPONDENTS

¶35

(SMT. ANUSHA V. SANGAMI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1, SRI AVINASH BANAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶36

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & AWARD DATED 29.11.2014, PASSED IN MVC.NO.129/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM TRIBUNAL AT GANGAVATHI,

¶37

¶38

PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶39

IN MFA NO.100629 OF 2015

¶40

BETWEEN

¶41

SMT. LAXMI W/O LATE KUDAPPA SRINIVAS AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD

¶42

MASTER MANOJ S/O LATE KUDAPPA SRINIVAS AGE: 18 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT

¶43

MASTER VARUN S/O LATE KUDAPPA SRINIVAS AGE: 17 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT

¶44

SMT. PADMAVATHI W/O K.NARAYANA RAO AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: NIL,

¶45

SRI.K.NARAYANA RAO S/O SUBRAMANYAM AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: NIL ALL ARE R/O MARALAHALLI, TQ. GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL. APPELLANT NO.3 IS BEING MINOR REP. BY HIS NATURAL MOTHER GUARDIAN LAXMI W/O LATE KUDAPPA SRINIVAS I.E., APPELLANT NO.1 …APPELLANTS

¶46

(BY SRI B.SHARANABASAWA, ADVOCATE)

¶47

AND

¶48

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANC CO., LTD. DIVISIONAL OFFICE, I FLOOR BALAGUNDI COMPLEX, STATION ROAD GULBARGA, TQ. AND DIST.GULBARGA

¶49

KOLLI SRIDEVI W/O LATE KOLLI SUDHAKAR AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE (OWNER OF SWIFT CAR NO.KA-37M-3108)

¶50

¶51

R/O MARALANAHALLI

¶52

TQ. GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL

¶53

…RESPONDENTS

¶54

(BY SMT.ANUSHA V SANGAMI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.S K KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1, SRI.AVINASH BANAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶55

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:29.11.2014, PASSED IN MVC.NO.151/2013, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AT GANGAVATHI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶56

IN MFA NO.100630 OF 2015

¶57

BETWEEN

¶58

SMT. KRISHNAKUMARI W/O LATE RENDU CHINTALA SRIRAMA SRIRAMAMURTHY @R.S.C.H. MURTHY @ RAMBABU, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,

¶59

KUM.ALAKYA D/O LATE RENDU CHINTALA SRIRAMAMURTHY @ R.S.C.H. MURTHY @ RAMBABU, AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,

¶60

MASTER R.VIJAYA SAI S/O LATE RENDU CHINTALA SRIRAMAMURTHY @ R.S.C.H. MURTHY @ RAMBABU, AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,

¶61

SMT.BHASKARA BALA TRIPUR SUNDARI W/O LATE VIJAYA RAMAYYA, AGE: 77 YEARS, OCC: NIL

¶62

ALL ARE R/O MARALANAHALLI (HULKIHAL CAMP) TQ. GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL

¶63

…APPELLANTS

¶64

(BY SRI.B SHARANABASAWA, ADVOCATE)

¶65

AND

¶66

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANC CO., LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, I FLOOR,

¶67

- 6 -

¶68

BALAGUNDI COMPLEX, STATION ROAD, GULBARGA, TQ. AND DIST.GULBARGA.

¶69

KOLLI SRIDEVI W/O LATE KOLLI SUDHAKAR AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE (OWNER OF SWIFT CAR NO.KA-37M-3108), R/O MARALANAHALLI, TQ. GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶70

…RESPONDENTS

¶71

(BY SMT.ANUSHA V SANGAMI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.S K KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1, SRI. AVINASH BANAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶72

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:29.11.2014, PASSED IN MVC.NO.152/2013, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AT GANGAVATHI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶73

IN MFA NO.100892 OF 2015

¶74

BETWEEN

¶75

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, 1 FLOOR BALAGUNDI COMPLEX, STATION ROAD, GULBARGA J. NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, II FLOOR ARIHANT PLAZA, KUSUGAL ROAD KESHWARPU, HUBBALLI 23

¶76

…APPELLANT

¶77

(BY SMT. ANUSHA V. SANGAMI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶78

AND

¶79

KRISHNAKUAMRI W/O RENDU CHINTALA SRIRAMAMURTHY @ R.S.C.H. MURTHY @ RAMBABU, AGE:35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD

¶80

KUM.ALAKYA D/O RENDU CHINTALA SRIRAMAMURTHY @

¶81

¶82

R.S.C.H. MURTHY @ RAMBABU AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT

¶83

MASTER R. VIJAYA SAI S/O RENDU CHINTALA SRIRAMAMURTHY @ R.S.C.H. MURTHY @ RAMBABU AGE: 17 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT SINCE RESPONDENT NO.3 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY MINOR GUARDIN AND NTURAL MOTHER I.E., RESPONDENT NO.1 4. SMT. BHASKARA BALA TRIPURA SUNDARI W/O ALTE VIJAYA RAMAYYA AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: NIL ALL ARE R/O MARALANAHALLI (HULIHAL CAMP) TALUK: GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL 5. KOLLI SRIDEVI W/O KOLLI SUDHAKAR AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE LEGAL HEIRS OF KIOLLI SUDHAKAR OWNER OF SWFIT CAR NO.KA-37/M-3108 R/O MARALANAHALLI TALUKA: GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.SHARANABASAWA, ADVOCATE)

¶84

IN MFA NO.100893 OF 2015 BETWEEN THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, 1 FLOOR BALAGUNDI COMPLEX, STATION ROAD, KALABURAGI J. NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, II FLOOR ARIHANT PLAZA, KUSUGAL ROAD KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI-23

¶85

…APPELLANT

¶86

(BY SMT. ANUSHA V. SANGAMI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶87

¶88

AND 1. SMT. LAXMI W/O KUDAPPA SRINIVAS AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD 2. MASTER MONOJ S/O KUNDAP SRINIVAS AGE: 18 YEARS 3. MASTER VARUN S/O KUDAPA SRINIVAS AGE: 17 YEARS RESPONDENT NO.3 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY NATURAL MOTHER SMT. LAXMI, RESPONDENT NO.1 4. SMT. PADMAVATHI W/O K. NARAYANA RAO AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: NIL 5. K. NARAYANRAO S/O SUBRAMANYAM AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: NIL ALL ARE R/O MARALANAHALLI TALUKA: GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL 6. KOLLI SRIDEVI W/O LATE KOLLI SUDHAKAR AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, LEGAL HEIRS OF KIOLLI SUDHAKAR OWNER OF SWIFT CAR NO.KA37/M-3108, R/O: MARALANAHALLI, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL. …RESPONDENTS

¶89

(BY SRI B.SHARANABASAWA, ADV. FOR R1, R4 & R5, R3 IS MINOR REP. BY R1, R2 & R6 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶90

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.11.2014, PASSED IN MVC NO.151/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AT GANGAVATHI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.13,70,400/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALISATION.

¶91

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶92

- 9 -

¶93

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶94

Since the facts and law to be decided in all these appeals are common, the above appeals are disposed of by this common judgment.

¶95

For convenient and easy reference, the parties in the appeals are referred as claimants and Insurance Company.

¶96

MFA Nos.100891/2015, 100892/2015 and 100893/2015 are by the Insurance Company arising out of MVC Nos.129/2013, 151/2013 and 152/2013 respectively questioning the liability as well as quantum of compensation.

¶97

MFA Nos.100336/2015, 100629/2015 and 100630/2015 are by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation arising out of MVC Nos.129/2013, 151/2013 and 152/2013 respectively.

¶98

All the appeals are filed questioning the common judgment and award passed in above MVC cases dated 29.11.2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Gangavathi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’ for short).

¶99

The brief facts, which are necessary for disposal of the appeals are as under:

¶100

10 -

¶101

Claim petitions came to be filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for grant of compensation. It is contended that the claimants in MVC Nos.129/2013 are the legal heirs of deceased J.Naveenkumar, claimants in MVC No.151/2013 are the legal heirs of deceased Kudappa Srinivas and claimants in MVC No.152/2013 are the legal heirs of deceased Rendu Chintala. It is stated that on 16.05.2013 the deceased persons above stated were proceeding in swift car bearing No.KA-37/M-3108 along with others to go to Rajamentary in Andrapradesh to consult Vasthu Tagnya for construction of house. That, on 17.05.2013 when the deceased persons and others reached near Dendulur village, at that time the driver of swift car drove the vehicle in high speed and in negligent manner and thereby the swift car dashed to one indica car bearing No.AP37/BJ-3864 which was coming in opposite direction. Due to the said accident, both the vehicles got completely damaged and inmates of swift car along with the driver died on the spot.

¶102

It is further stated that the dead bodies of the deceased persons were shifted to District hospital, Eluru. Thereafter, case has been registered and charge sheet came to be filed against the deceased driver of swift car and the case was closed as abated.

¶103

11 -

¶104

Therefore, the claimants being the legal heirs of deceased persons have filed claim petitions for the accidental death of their family members and sought for awarding of suitable compensation.

¶105

The Tribunal on a cumulative consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record, allowed the claim petitions in part and awarded compensation of Rs.10,42,800/- in MVC No.129/2013, Rs.13,70,400/in MVC No.151/2013 and Rs.9,72,600/- in MVC No.152/2013 with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization on account of death of deceased persons above stated.

¶106

It is that common judgment which is under challenge in these appeals by the Insurance Company and claimants respectively questioning the liability and quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, respectively in their respective appeals. The Insurance Company is questioning the liability and quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal respectively in the respective appeals, whereas, the claimants have preferred appeals seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶107

12 -

¶108

Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance

¶109

Company Sri S.K. Kayakamath submitted that there is head on collision between Swift Car bearing No.KA-37/M-3108 and the Indica Car bearing No.AP-37/BJ-3864. Therefore, submitted that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the indica car also and the complaint and FIR were registered against the drivers of both cars. But, the Tribunal has swayed away by filing of charge sheet against the driver of the indica car and fastened the entire liability on the driver of the swift car bearing No.KA-37/M-3108. Therefore submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in fastening the liability only against the owner and insurer of the swift car.

¶110

Learned counsel further submitted that the quantum of compensation assessed by the Tribunal is on the higher side, which require interference by this Court by reducing the quantum of compensation. Therefore, prays to allow all the three appeals filed by the insurance company.

¶111

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that after lodging the complaint and FIR, the police have conducted the investigation and found that the driver of the swift car bearing No.KA-37/M-3108 was driving the car

¶112

13 -

¶113

with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, which is rightly appreciated by the Tribunal and thus, fastened the liability jointly on the owner and insurer of the swift car. Therefore submitted that it calls for no interference.

¶114

It is further submitted that the complainant, who has lodged the complaint is not an eyewitness to the accident, but after the accident, only on the basis of what he has seen on the place of accident he has lodged the complaint by mentioning the number and particulars of two vehicles and whatever injuries caused to the claimants. Further submitted that upon conducting the investigation, the Investigating Officer had filed a final report by forming an opinion that the driver of the swift car bearing No.KA-37/M-3108 had lost control over the car and dashed to the divider of the road and crossed the divider and hit to the indica car bearing No.AP-37/BJ-3864 which is coming from opposite direction. Therefore submitted that as per the final report it is revealed that the driver of swift car bearing No.KA-37/M-3108 was responsible for the accident, which is rightly considered by the Tribunal and thus, fastened the liability jointly on the owner and insurer of the swift car bearing No.KA-37/M-3108. Hence, in this regard, there is no merit in the contention of the insurance

¶115

14 -

¶116

company and also on the quantum of compensation, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, prays to dismiss the appeals filed by the insurance company and allow the appeals filed by the claimants by enhancing the amount of compensation.

¶117

Upon considering the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the insurance company that the driver of the indica car bearing No.AP-37/BJ-3864 is also responsible for the accident, the police documentary evidence can be appreciated. Ex.P1 is the FIR, Ex.P2 is the complaint and Ex.P6 is the final report filed upon investigation of the crime involved in the case. The complainant is not an eyewitness to the accident. The complainant arrived to the spot and what he had seen he had lodged a complaint as per Ex.P2 by saying that there was accident between two vehicles and the inmates of the car died in the accident. Therefore, based on the said complaint and FIR, investigation was conducted and the investigating officer had filed final report as per Ex.P6. It is an opinion formed by the investigating officer that on 17.05.2013 at 9.30 a.m., the accident was occurred and observed that the driver of the swift car bearing No.KA-37/M-3108 drove the vehicle in a rash and

¶118

15 -

¶119

negligent manner and lost its control and subsequently ran over the divider of the road and dashed against the indica car bearing No.AP-37/BJ-3864 which was coming from the opposite direction and in this way the driver of the swift car had caused the accident. Therefore, upon the investigation it is revealed that the driver of the swift car by losing control over the car hit the divider of the road and crossed the divider and by going over to the wrong side of the road hit the indica car. Therefore, the documentary evidences reveal that the driver of the swift car bearing No.KA-37/M-3108 has caused the accident and he died in the said accident. Therefore, abated charge sheet is filed.

¶120

Furthermore, PWs.4 and 5 are the eyewitnesses to the accident. These two witnesses have stated that the driver of the swift car bearing No.KA-37/M-3108 was driving the said car with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and at that time a buffalo had intercepted the road. Therefore, he had turned the car suddenly and then he had lost control over the car, dashed the divider and thus hit the indica car bearing No.AP-37/BJ-3864 and then the swift car had toppled down and the inmates of the swift car died on the spot. Therefore, upon considering the evidence of PWs.4 and 5 who are eyewitnesses

¶121

16 -

¶122

with reference to cross-examination, nothing is revealed to show that they are not eyewitnesses to the accident and deposed falsely. Therefore, it is proved from the evidence of PWs.4 and 5 and also from the final report filed by the Investigating Officer that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the swift car only and it is rightly observed by the Tribunal and accordingly fastened liability on the owner and insurer of swift car bearing No.KA-37/M-3108. Therefore, so far as fastening liability on the owner and insurer of the swift car, the finding given by the Tribunal is justifiable and correct one based on the evidence on record. Therefore, the appeals filed by the insurance company in MFA Nos.100891/2015, 100892/2015 and 100893/2015 on this aspect are liable to be dismissed.

¶123

12. In MFA No.100336/2015 (MVC No.129/2013):

¶124

The appellants in the present case are wife, minor children and old age mother of the deceased. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.9,82,800/- towards loss of dependency and a sum of Rs.60,000/- towards other conventional heads. In all, the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.10,42,800/- along with interest at 6% p.a.

¶125

17 -

¶126

The deceased was aged 36 years at the time of accident as per Ex.P4 - post mortem report. Therefore, as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009 ACJ 1298), the appropriate multiplier would be 15. But the Tribunal has committed an error in applying the multiplier of 14 by making guesswork regarding the age of the deceased that he must be between 41-43 years considering the age of the first son of the deceased. Where, a documentary evidence regarding age is available, then the guesswork cannot be done. In the present case, Ex.P4 is the post mortem report and in the said document, the age of the deceased is shown as 36 years. Accordingly, the appropriate multiplier would be '15'.

¶127

The claimants have stated that the deceased was agriculturist and was also doing milk vending business and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. To prove the same, the claimants have produced RTC extract as per Ex.P11 and membership document being the member of Marlanahalli Milk Producers Co-operative Society as per Ex.P12. But, by disbelieving the said document Ex.P12, the Tribunal has considered the monthly income of the deceased only at

¶128

- 18 -

¶129

Rs.6,000/- notionally. Even in the absence of any documentary evidence to prove the exact income of the deceased, the notional income as recognised by the High Court Legal Services Committee considering the living expenses for the prevailing year would be taken into consideration. Accordingly, considering the year of accident that occurred in the year 2013, the notional monthly income of the deceased is considered at Rs.7,000/while calculating the compensation under the head ‘loss of dependency’.

¶130

Further, as per the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680) at paragraphs 59.3 and 59.4, in case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years . Hence, in the present case the deceased being 36 years old, 40% is to be added to his actual income towards future prospects. But, the Tribunal has considered it as only 30%, which is not proper.

¶131

Further, the Tribunal has deducted 1/4^th towards personal expenses of the deceased. Since, the claimants are four in

¶132

19 -

¶133

number, the deductions made by the Tribunal towards personal expenses of the deceased is just and proper.

¶134

Thus, the compensation towards loss of dependency is recalculated and quantified as under:

¶135

Rs.7,000 + Rs.2,800 (40%) = Rs.9,800 x 3/4 x 15 x 12 = Rs.13,23,000/-

¶136

Further, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.60,000/- towards conventional heads, which is on the lower side and the same is required to be enhanced. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- is awarded towards conventional heads viz., loss of estate, loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, transportation of dead body and funeral expenses.

¶137

Thus, the claimants are entitled for total

¶138

compensation under various heads as under:

¶139

Sl. No.	Heads	Amount
1.	Towards loss of dependency	Rs.13,23,000/-
2.	Towards conventional heads viz., loss of estate, loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, transportation of dead body, funeral expenses	Rs.1,60,000/-
	Total	Rs.14,83,000/-

¶140

The Tribunal has already awarded a total compensation of

¶141

Rs.10,42,800/-. Hence, after deducting the same, the

¶142

20 -

¶143

appellants/claimants are entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.4,40,200/- (Rs.14,83,000 - Rs.10,42,800) along with interest at 6% p.a.

¶144

16. In MFA No.100629/2015 (MVC No.151/2013):

¶145

The appellants in the present case are wife, minor children and old age parents of the deceased. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.13,10,400/- towards loss of dependency and a sum of Rs.60,000/- towards other conventional heads. In all, the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.13,70,400/- along with interest at 6% p.a.

¶146

The deceased was aged 36 years at the time of accident as per Ex.P15 - post mortem report. Therefore, as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009 ACJ 1298), the appropriate multiplier would be 15. But, the Tribunal has committed an error in applying the multiplier of 14 by making guesswork regarding the age of the deceased that he must be between 41-43 years considering the age of the first son of the deceased. Where, a documentary evidence regarding age is available, then the guesswork cannot be done. In the present case, Ex.P15 is the post mortem report and in the said document, the age of the

¶147

- 21 -

¶148

deceased is shown as 36 years. Accordingly, the appropriate multiplier would be '15'.

¶149

The claimants have stated that the deceased was agriculturist and was also doing paddy business and was earning Rs.30,000/- per month. To prove the same, the claimants have produced RTC extracts as per Exs.P18 and P19. Therefore, by considering the said documents, the Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month, which is just and proper.

¶150

¶151

22 -

¶152

Further, the Tribunal has deducted 1/4^th towards personal expenses of the deceased. Since, the claimants are five in number, the deductions made by the Tribunal towards personal expenses of the deceased is just and proper.

¶153

Thus, the compensation towards loss of dependency is recalculated and quantified as under:

¶154

Rs.8,000 + Rs.3,200 (40%) = Rs.11,200/- x 3/4 x 15 x 12 = Rs.15,12,000/-

¶155

Further, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of

¶156

Rs.60,000/- towards conventional heads, which is on the lower side and the same is required to be enhanced. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- is awarded towards conventional heads viz., loss of estate, loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, transportation of dead body and funeral expenses.

¶157

Thus, the claimants are entitled for total

¶158

compensation under various heads as under:

¶159

Sl. No.	Heads	Amount
1.	Towards loss of dependency	Rs.15,12,000/-
2.	Towards conventional heads viz., loss of estate, loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, transportation of dead body and funeral expenses	Rs.1,90,000/-
	Total	Rs.17,02,000/-

¶160

23 -

¶161

The Tribunal has already awarded a total compensation of Rs.13,70,400/-. Hence, after deducting the same, the appellants/claimants are entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.3,31,600/- (Rs.17,02,000 - Rs.13,70,400) along with interest at 6% p.a.

¶162

20. In MFA No.100630/2015 (MVC No.152/2013):

¶163

The appellants in the present case are wife, children and old age mother of the deceased. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.9,12,600/- towards loss of dependency and a sum of Rs.60,000/- towards other conventional heads. In all, the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.9,72,600/- along with interest at 6% p.a.

¶164

The deceased was aged 50 years at the time of accident as per Ex.P20 - post mortem report. Hence, the multiplier of 13 adopted by the Tribunal is just and proper.

¶165

The claimants have stated that the deceased was agriculturist and priest and was earning Rs.25,000/- per month. To prove the same, the claimants have produced certificate issued by Sri Ramanjaneya Temple as per Exs.P21 and also examined PW.6 in support of the said document. But, by

¶166

24 -

¶167

disbelieving the same, the Tribunal has considered the monthly income of the deceased only at Rs.6,000/- notionally. Even in the absence of any documentary evidence to prove the exact income of the deceased, the notional income as recognised by the High Court Legal Services Committee considering the living expenses for the prevailing year would be taken into consideration. Accordingly, considering the year of accident that occurred in the year 2013, the notional monthly income of the deceased is considered at Rs.7,000/- while calculating the compensation under the head ‘loss of dependency’.

¶168

Further, as per the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680) at paragraphs 59.3 and 59.4, in case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 25% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years . Hence, in the present case the deceased being 50 years old, 25% is to be added to his actual income towards future prospects. But, the Tribunal has considered it as 30%, which is not proper.

¶169

25 -

¶170

Further, the Tribunal has deducted 1/4^th towards personal expenses of the deceased. Since, the claimants are four in number, the deductions made by the Tribunal towards personal expenses of the deceased is just and proper.

¶171

Thus, the compensation towards loss of dependency is recalculated and quantified as under:

¶172

Rs.7,000 + Rs.1,750 (25%) = Rs.8,750/- x 3/4 x 13 x 12 = Rs.10,23,750/-

¶173

Further, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of

¶174

Rs.60,000/- towards conventional heads, which is on the lower side and the same is required to be enhanced. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- is awarded towards conventional heads viz., loss of estate, loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, transportation of dead body and funeral expenses.

¶175

Thus, the claimants are entitled for total

¶176

compensation under various heads as under:

¶177

Sl. No.	Heads	Amount
1.	Towards loss of dependency	Rs.10,23,750/-
2.	Towards conventional heads viz., loss of estate, loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, transportation of dead body and funeral expenses	Rs.1,60,000/-
	Total	Rs.11,83,750/-

¶178

- 26 -

¶179

The Tribunal has already awarded a total compensation of Rs.9,72,600/-. Hence, after deducting the same, the claimants are entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.2,11,150/(Rs.11,83,750 - Rs.9,72,600) along with interest at 6% p.a.

¶180

In view of the aforesaid discussion, we pass the following:

¶181

ORDER

¶182

i. MFA Nos.100891/2015, 100892/2015 and 100893/2015 filed by the insurance company are dismissed.

¶183

ii. MFA Nos.100336/2015, 100629/2015 and 100630/2015 filed by the claimants are allowed in part.

¶184

iii. The common judgment and award dated 29.11.2014 passed by the Tribunal in MVC Nos.129/2013, 151/2013 and 152/2013 is hereby modified.

¶185

iv. The appellants in MFA No.100336/2015 are entitled for an additional compensation of

¶186

27 -

¶187

Rs.4,40,200/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.

¶188

v. The appellants in MFA No.100629/2015 are entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.3,31,600/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.

¶189

vi. The appellants in MFA No.100630/2015 are entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.2,11,150/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.

¶190

vii. The appellant in MFA Nos.100891/2015, 100892/2015 and 100893/2015 - insurance company is directed deposit the entire compensation (including the compensation awarded by the Tribunal) within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶191

viii. The apportionment and disbursement to be done as per the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

¶192

28 -

¶193

ix. No order as to costs. x. Draw award accordingly. xi. The amount in deposit in MFA Nos.100891/2015, 100892/2015 and 100893/2015 shall be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement. xii. In view of disposal of the main appeals, I.A.1/2019 filed for early hearing in MFA No.100630/2015 does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of. Sd/JUDGE Sd/JUDGE

¶194

sh/LG

The Divisional Manager, National v. Sunitha W/O J. Naveenkumar @ Naveen

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Manager, National v. Sunitha W/O J. Naveenkumar @ Naveen

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Praveen Irappa Baligar @ Kasar Vs Sri. R.Ramachandaran

Vijaylaxmi W/O Vittal Katwe Vs Dr. Vasant S/O Krishna Revankar

Rahul S/O Lxman Bhojane Vs Karnataka State Law University

Krishna Vs Asif

Sunitha W/O Late J Naveenkumar @ Naveen Vs the Divisional Manager

Smt.Neelabai W/O Late Hanamant Sherakhane Vs G.S. Prakash