Rajshree W/o Late Pandurang Reddy Yadle and Renuka D/o Late Pandurang Reddy Yadle and Priyanka D/o Late Pandurang Reddy and Mahadev Reddy S/o Late Pandurang Reddy V. Shaik Osman S/o Shaik Hassan and The New India Insurance Co., Ltd

MFA/201401/2015

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the family of the deceased, Pandurang Reddy, seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded for his accidental death in 2007. Initially, the Tribunal dismissed their claim, attributing negligence to the deceased. However, upon appeal, the High Court remitted the matter for reassessment, leading to a revised compensation amount. The appellants contested the Tribunal's assessment of the deceased's income and the lack of additional compensation for future prospects and filial consortium. The High Court agreed with the appellants, leading to a significant increase in the compensation awarded.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 690535 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 19-07-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and others, National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others
• Laws Referred To: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: S S ASPALLI
• Assessee Lawyers: SHARANABASAPPA BABSHETTY
• Keywords: Enhancement of compensation; Filial Consortium; Future prospects; Income Assessment; Negligence; Quantum of compensation; Accidental death
• Section: 166; 173(1)

Judgement Text

"1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 201401/2015 (MV) Between: 1. Rajshree W/o Late Pandurang Reddy Yadle, Age: 40 years, Occ: Household 2. Renuka D/o Late Pandurang Reddy Yadle, Age: 30years, Occ: Student 3. Priyanka D/o Late Pandurang Reddy Age: 28 year, Occ: Student 4. Mahadev Reddy S/o Late Pandurang Reddy Age: 27 years, Occ: Student Shivamma W/o Late Saheb Reddy Yadle is died and the appellant No.1 to 4 are her LRs All R/o Village Gadlegaon-B Tq: Basavakalyan, Dist: Bidar Now Residing at Gunj Area, Bhalki Dist: Bidar. ... Appellants (By Sri Sharanabasappa K. Babshetty, Advocate) 2 And: 1. Shaik Osman S/o Shaik Hassan Age: Major, Occ: Owner of Tipper Bearing Reg.No.MWE-1078 R/o Basavakalyan, Dist: Bidar - 585 327 2. The New India Insurance Co., Ltd Naik Nivas Shiaji Chowk, Osmanabad Represented by its Branch Manager Indol Shopping Complex Railway Station Road Bidar - 585 330. ... Respondents ( By Sri S.S. Aspalli, Advocate for R-2 R1 is served) 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: 19/09/2014 passed by the II Additional M.A.C.T & Additional District & Sessions Judge at Bidar, sitting at Bhalki, in MVC No. 347/2007 and enhance the compensation amount as claimed by the appellants. This appeal having been heard and reserved on 07.07.2021 coming on for pronouncement of judgment this day, S.G.Pandit, J., delivered the following: JUDGMENT The claimants are in appeal praying for enhancement of compensation not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded under the judgment and award dated 19.09.2014 in MVC No.347/2007 on the file of II Additional MACT and 3 Additional District and Sessions Judge at Bidar, sitting at Bhalki . 2. The wife, children and mother of the deceased filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') claiming compensation for the accidental death of one Pandurang Reddy that occurred on 29.06.2007 involving Tipper bearing Registration No.MWE 1078 and motor cycle bearing No.KA 39 / H 3670. It is stated that the deceased was aged 37 years earning net income of Rs.25,000/- per month apart from paying monthly installments of Rs.58,100/- and Rs.17,000/- quarterly towards the vehicle loan obtained by the deceased. 3. Respondent No.2 - Insurance Company contends that accident took place due to the negligence of the deceased apart from denying the claim petition averments. Claimant No.1 - wife of the deceased examined herself as PW.1 and also examined one 4 Anilreddy as PW.2 apart from marking documents Ex.P1 to P.16. Respondent examined RW.1. The Tribunal initially dismissed the claim petition holding that accident took place due to the negligence of the deceased, against which claimants filed MFA No.30875/2010 (MV) before this Court. This Court by judgment dated 26.11.2013 allowed the appeal and remitted the matter for determining the quantum of compensation in accordance with law. On remand the Tribunal based on the material on record determined and awarded compensation of Rs.14,15,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit on the following heads :- 1. Loss of Dependency Rs.13,50,000/- 2. Loss of estate Rs. 20,000/- 3. Loss of love and affection Rs. 25,000/- 4. Transportation of dead body Rs. 15,000/- 5. Loss of consortium for petitioner No.1 Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs.14,15,000/- 5 While awarding the above compensation the Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month, adopted multiplier of 15 and deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses. The claimants not being satisfied with the assessment of income and praying for higher compensation are before this Court in this appeal. 4. Heard Sri Sharanabasappa K. Babshetty, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri. S.S. Aspalli, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that Tribunal committed an error in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month ignoring the material on record such as Ex.P10 - copy of the Bank account statement. It is his submission that claimants have stated that deceased was having net income of Rs.25,000/- per month excluding Rs.58,100/- per month installment paid towards loan 6 obtained to purchase Dozer vehicle. He invites attention of this Court to Ex.P10 to demonstrate payment of installment of Rs.58,100/- every month to Canara Bank, thus he prays for revision of income of the deceased, on the higher side. Further he submits that 5th claimant being mother of the deceased, would be entitled for Rs.40,000/- on the head of filial consortium as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130. Further he submits that Tribunal failed to award 40% of the assessed income on the head of future prospects as held 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), which the claimant would be entitled to. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company would submit that there is no material to 7 revise the monthly income of the deceased on the higher side. It is his submission that compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just compensation, which needs no interference. 7. On hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the records, the only point that arises for consideration is as to “Whether the claimants would be entitled for enhanced compensation ?” 8. The answer to the above point would be in the affirmative for the following reasons :- The accident that occurred on 29.06.2007 involving Tipper bearing Reg. No.MWE 1078 and motor cycle bearing No.KA 39 H 3670 and the accidental death of Pandurang Reddy is not in dispute in this appeal. The claimants are in appeal praying for enhancement of compensation. PW.1-wife of the deceased stated that deceased was having net income of Rs.25,000/- per 8 month and he was paying Rs.58.100/- per month towards loan installment. The Tribunal on the ground that there is no document to determine definite income of the deceased considered Rs.10,000/- per month as income of the deceased. But looking into Ex.P10 Bank Statement, we are of the view that income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.10,000/- per month is on the lower side. Ex.P10 statement of account for the period from 01.1.2006 to 30.06.2008 indicates payment of Rs.58,100/- every month towards Tata Motors Limited. PW-1 wife of the deceased, in her evidence, has categorically stated that the deceased used to pay Rs.58,100/- per month to bank as installments of dozer. It is also stated that the deceased also used to pay Rs.17,000/- as quarterly installments of his tractor. The deceased also used to pay salary of his tractor driver, two farm servants and other servants to the tune of Rs.20,000/- per month. The insurer has cross- examined PW-1 and nothing to dispute the income of 9 the deceased nor that the deceased was paying installments of Rs.58,100/- per month is elicited. The respondent-insurer in cross-examination has suggested that the husband of PW-1 was not possessing any dozer and not doing any contract work and it also suggested that deceased was not in debt of Rs.58,100/- per month. To demonstrate that deceased was owing Tata Hitachi, R.C. book is placed on record as Ex.P11 apart from placing on record the original sale invoice Ex.P6 and Hypothecation letter Ex.P7. The above documents have remained unchallenged. Unless the deceased had substantial income, he would not be in a position to remit a sum of Rs.58,100/- per month. To determine income of the deceased, we have taken note of Ex.P10 Bank Statement and to some extent on guess work, which is permissible as held in catena of decisions by the Hon’ble Apex Court, we deem it appropriate to re- assess the income of the deceased at Rs.20,000/- per month. From the income now assessed, the amount 10 towards income tax is liable to be deducted to arrive at net income. The accident is of the year 2007 and income up to Rs.1,50,000/- was exempted from income tax. The annual gross income would be Rs.2,40,000/-, out of which, if Rs.1,50,000/- is deducted as exemption from income tax, Rs.90,000/- would be the taxable income and 10% of Rs.90,000/- would be Rs.9,000/- which is liable to be deducted towards income tax out of gross annual income of Rs.2,40,000/-. Thus, annual income of the deceased would be Rs.2,31,000/-. 9. The Tribunal has failed to award compensation on the head of future prospects. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) has held that wherever the deceased was aged below 40 years, the claimants would be entitled for adding 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for adding 40% of the assessed income 11 towards future prospects, since the deceased was aged 37 years. 10. As contended by learned counsel for the appellants, 4th claimant mother of the deceased would be entitled for Rs.40,000/- towards filial consortium apart from Rs.70,000/- to the 1st claimant on conventional heads. 11. Thus, the appellants/claimants would be entitled for the modified compensation as follows: 1. Towards loss of dependency (Rs.20,000x12 = 2,40,000 - 9000 = 2,31,000 + Rs.92,400/- (i.e., 40% income) = Rs.3,23,400 - Rs.80,850/-(i.e., 1/4th) = Rs.2,42,550 x 15) Rs.36,38,250/- 2. Towards conventional heads Rs. 70,000/- 3. Towards filial consortium to claimant No.5 Rs. 40,000/- Total Rs.37,48,250/- 12. Thus, the appellants would be entitled for total compensation of Rs.37,48,250/- with interest at 6% p.a. as against compensation of Rs.14,15,000/- awarded by 12 the Tribunal. Thus, the appellants would be entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.23,33,250/-. 13. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 19.09.2014 in MVC No.347/2007 passed by the Tribunal is modified. The appellants/claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.23,33,250/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. The apportionment, deposit and disbursement shall be as ordered by the Tribunal. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE NG* "