Partly allowed

Shantkumar S/O Ramshetty Biradar and Anr. v. Mr. Goutam S/O Lingappa Maisalge and Anr.

Karnataka HC6 Jan 2023MFA/200085/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Parents of a deceased who died in a road accident appealed to enhance compensation. The High Court modified the Tribunal's award, calculating future prospects at 40% and income at Rs.10,000, raising total compensation to Rs.16,22,000, though the final relief granted was Rs.6,93,000 enhancement.

What did the court decide?

The judgment and award of the Tribunal modified. Petitioners entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.6,93,000 with 6% interest per annum.

Shantkumar S/O Ramshetty Biradar and Anr. Vs Mr… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.200085/2016 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Shantkumar S/o Ramshetty Biradar, Age: 57 years, Occ: Agriculture,

¶9

Mahantabai W/o Shantkumar Biradar, Age: 52 years, Occ: Household,

¶10

Both R/o. Bagduri, Tq: Basavakalyan, Dist: Bidar-584101.

¶11

... Appellants

¶12

(By Sri Babu H.Metagudda, Advocate)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Mr. Goutam S/o Lingappa Maisalge, Age: 42 years, Occ: Owner of Tata Sumo No.MH-04/AA-4992, R/o. Jakekur, Tq: Omerga, Dist: Osmanabad (MS)-484101.

¶15

MFA No.200085/2016

¶16

¶17

The Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd, S.No.243, Laxmi Palace First Floor, Karanja Chowk Budhwar Peth, Vagdari Road, Akkalkot-418216.

¶18

… Respondents (By Sri Sudarshan M., Advocate for R2: R1-Notice dispensed with v/o. dtd.27.03.2018)

¶19

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act, praying to allow this appeal and modify the judgment and award dated 03.09.2015 passed in MVC No.46/2014 by Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT at Basavakalyan. And enhancing the compensation from Rs.9,29,000/- with 6% interest to Rs.60,00,000/- with 12% interest and etc.

¶20

This appeal coming on for hearing, through physical hearing/video conference, this day T.G. Shivashankare Gowda, J., delivered the following:

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

In this appeal the appellant has challenged the judgment dated 03.09.2015 passed in MVC No.46 of 2014 on

¶23

MFA No.200085/2016

¶24

¶25

the file of the Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Basavakalyana (Hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal' for short).

¶26

The parties will be referred with respect to their status before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

¶27

Briefly stated, the facts are that, petitioners are

¶28

the parents of Eranna, the deceased. Eranna suffered severe injuries in a road accident that took place on 04-10-2013 at Mudbi-Basavakalyana road hit by TATA Sumo bearing registration No.MH-04/AA-4992 against his TVS super XL. He succumbed to injuries at the spot. Petitioners claimed compensation of Rs.60,00,000/-. They pleaded that deceased was aged 24 years, working as sandblaster in Kuwaith and earning Rs.19,000/- per month. The claim was opposed by the Insurance Company. The Tribunal awarded

¶29

Rs.9,29,000/- with 6% interest.

¶30

MFA No.200085/2016

¶31

¶32

4. The petitioners have pleaded inadequacy in the

¶33

compensation awarded by the Tribunal, income taken on lower side, future prospectors was not added, less amounts have been awarded towards conventional heads.

¶34

According to the learned counsel for petitioners, the deceased was drawing salary of Rs.19,000/- per month, is a passport holder, he has permanent appointment, future prospectus of 50% is not taken, conventional heads are on lower side and accordingly he sought for re-assessment and enhancement.

¶35

Per contra, learned counsel for Insurance Company contended that the consideration of future prospects and also the conventional heads has been settled, the income of the deceased at Kuwait even taken expenses will be more than 75%, Tribunal correctly assessed the income an supported the impugned judgment.

¶36

MFA No.200085/2016

¶37

¶38

We have given our anxious consideration to the

¶39

arguments addressed on behalf of the parties and perused the records.

¶40

Ex.P13 is the employment agreement issued by

¶41

ABJ engineering and contracting company KSC, the terms of the agreement did not disclose the actuals of Salary, the company is a private one, employment is attached with termination with notice. The petitioners have not produced

¶42

the bank account details of the deceased to establish salary credits and his savings. Ex.P13 shows the deceased agreed for be paid at KD85 monthly with free other facilities. Ex.P12 is the Passport of the deceased, shows he had returned to India on 29-9-2013 due to expiry of VISA on 23-10-2013 and the accident was on 04-10-2013. There is no evidence regarding renewal of VISA and also the intention of the deceased to go back to Kuwait for employment. It is argued

¶43

MFA No.200085/2016

¶44

¶45

by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Tribunal ought to have considered all these aspects to consider the income of the deceased as sum of Rs.19,000/-. To the pointed question whether VISA and the employment agreement was renewed, there is no answer from the learned counsel for the petitioners. The Tribunal considered the income of the decease at Rs.8,000/-. Having regard to the evidence that the deceased was at abroad, returned home just 5 days prior to the accident, the income so assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side, and it may be assessed at Rs.10,000/- per month.

¶46

As seen from the impugned judgment, the

¶47

Tribunal has not considered future prospects and also the conventional heads. Future prospectus of 50% cannot be considered as the employment was on a foreign shore, terminable by notice and it cannot be treated as permanent

¶48

MFA No.200085/2016

¶49

¶50

job. By applying the principles laid down in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others -2017 ACJ 680 future prospects should be taken as 40% for age below 40 years. There is dispute with regard to age of the deceased was 24. Hence, applicable multiplier as

¶51

per decision of Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. DTC- (2009)6 SCC 121, is '18'.

¶52

If all these factors are taken into consideration the assessment of loss of dependency would be: Rs.10,000/(Income of the deceased) + Rs.4,000/- (40% Future Prospects) = Rs.14,000/- per month. The petitioners are the parents of the deceased and the deceased was a bachelor, 1/2 has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. It comes to Rs.7,000/- per month and Rs.84,000/- per year multiplied by '18', it comes to Rs.15,12,000/-. Under the conventional heads, each of the

¶53

MFA No.200085/2016

¶54

¶55

petitioners is entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards loss of love and affection, towards loss of estate and funeral expenses Rs.15,000/each. The total compensation comes to Rs.15,12,000/- + Rs.1,10,000/- = Rs.16,22,000/-, which is the just compensation to which the petitioners are entitled. The appeal filed by the petitioners deserves to be allowed in part by modifying the compensation from Rs.9,29,000/- to Rs.16,22,000/-.

¶56

11. In the result, the following:

¶57

ORDER

¶58

The appeal is allowed in part.

¶59

The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified.

¶60

The petitioners are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.6,93,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per year.

¶61

MFA No.200085/2016