1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BENCH

DATED THIS THE 30 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2016

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.BILLAPPA

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.101059/2014 (MV)

BETWEEN:

1. KAVITA W/O JAGADISH GANJIGATTI, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,

2. SATISH S/O JAGADISH GANJIGATTI, AGE: 17 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, MINOR REPRESENTED BY MINOR GUARDIAN NATURAL MOTHER I.E., APPELLANT NO. 1

3. HARISH S/O JAGADISH GANJIGATTI, AGE: 13 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, MINOR REPRESENTED BY MINOR GUARDIAN NATURAL MOTHER I.E., APPELLANT NO. 1

4. BASAPPA S/O BASAPPA GANJIGATTI, AGE: 76 YEARS, OCC: NOW NIL,

ALL ARE R/O: CHIKKANELLUR, POST: HOSANEERALAGI, TQ: SHIGGAON, DIST.HAVERI 2

NOW AT RANEBENNUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. ... APPELANTS

(BY SRI. G. S. HULMANI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. GURU MURTHY M S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/O: #276, 3 RD B CROSS, 2ND STAGE, 3 RD BLOCK, BASAVESHWARA NAGAR, BAGALKOT.

2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INSURANCE CO LTD ENKAY COMPLEX, KESHWAPUR, HUBLI. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ARUNA DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 - NOTICE DISPENSED WITH) ---

THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:08.11.2013, PASSED IN MVC.NO.149/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND AMACT RANEBENNUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, K.N.PHANEENDRA J. , DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 3

JUDGMENT

The appellants have preferred this appeal calling in question the judgment and award passed in MVC No.149/2012 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Ranebennur, being aggrieved by the inadequacy of compensation awarded by the

Tribunal.

2. The brief factual matrix that emanate from the records are that the husband of the 1 st respondent by name Jagadish

Ganjigatti was going in a Hondai car bearing No.TP.KA-25/TP-68 from Chikkanalur village of Shiggaon Tq. to Davangere. After attending his work, he was returning from Davangere towards his native place. The deceased himself was the driver of the said car.

When the car reached near Kamadod spinning mill, at that time, a mini lorry bearing registration No.KA.26/A-0475 overtook the car and went ahead by the side of the car, at that time a tanker lorry bearing No.KA.02/AA-9054 came from Harihar towards

Ranebennur while overtaking the car in a high speed, driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver of the said tanker, has lost 4

control and hit the car from backside. Due to the impact of the accident, the inmates of the car sustained grievous injuries and particularly, the deceased fell down from the car and wheels of the tanker lorry ran over his body, due to which he succumbed to the injuries on the spot itself.

The appellants, due to the untimely death of the bread earner of their family, have approached the Tribunal seeking compensation of a sum of Rs.60,00,000/- by filing a claim petition.

In order to prove their case, the wife of the deceased – appellant No.1 examined herself as PW1 and got marked documents at Exs. P1 to P20. The Insurance Company – respondent No.2 has appeared and examined one Shri.

Sharanabasava Rudrappa Virupannanavar as RW1 and no document has been marked by the respondent.

The Tribunal, after reevaluating the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, has awarded a total compensation of Rs.12,25,000/- on different heads, which are as follows: 5

Amount(Rs.) Towards Loss of dependency 11,70,000.00 Towards loss of consortium to 10,000.00 petitioner No.1 Towards loss of love and affection to 30,000.00 petitioners No.2 to 4 Towards dead body transportation 15,000.00 and funeral expenses Total 12,25,000.00

3. The learned counsel for the appellants strenuously contended before this Court that though the appellants have produced sufficient materials before the Tribunal to show that deceased was an income tax payer and he has also been looking after his agricultural properties and he was earning more than

Rs.75,000/- per month, the Tribunal has not taken into consideration all these factors. However, wrongly the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month.

Further he contended that the deceased was aged 45 years. Instead of taking the multiplier of 14, the Tribunal has wrongly taken it as

13. Further it is contended that the Tribunal has awarded a very less amount towards consortium, love and affection and not 6

awarded any amount towards loss of estate. Therefore, he contends that the award passed by the Tribunal is not just and reasonable.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel who is appearing for the respondent-Insurance Company contended before this Court that the Tribunal has properly assessed the income of the deceased.

Considering even the income tax returns produced before the

Court and assessing the oral and documentary evidence on record properly, the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation, which does not call for any interference by this

Court.

5. On careful re-appreciation of the material on record, the point that would arise for the consideration of this Court is:

“Whether the Tribunal has properly appreciated the entire materials on record and the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?”

6. We have carefully evaluated once again the oral and documentary evidence on record. On careful perusal of the case, 7

the income tax returns produced by the appellants before the

Tribunal, which are marked as Exs. P9 to P14 i.e., tax payee acknowledgements for the year 2005-2011 and Exs. P15 to P19 - record of rights, establishes that the deceased was a tax payee and also looking after his agricultural lands and Ex.P20, shows that he is also working as President of Bankapur TAPCMS.

7. The above said documents disclose that the deceased has declared his income as Rs.2,16,727/- for the relevant period. Of course there was deduction under the chapter 6A of the Act. It is shown as a deduction was given to Rs.1,00,000/-. The agricultural income was also shown as Rs.2,30,000/-. The Tribunal has considered that the income tax was only paid to Rs.1,86,727/- and has globally evaluated the income at Rs.10,000/- per month. But as could be seen from the income tax returns, the gross total income of Rs.2,16,727/- ought to have been taken by the Tribunal in order to ascertain the total income apart from the supervision made by the deceased over his agricultural lands. Therefore, we feel it just and necessary that the income of the said person has to be taken at the rate of Rs.18,000/- insofar as business is concerned. If an 8

amount of Rs.5,000/- is added to that for the supervision of the deceased over his agricultural lands, it would come around to

Rs.23,000/- as his monthly income. As it is shown that he was a regular businessman and agricultural lands are still exists in favour of the appellants, they have got regular income. Therefore, we feel it just and necessary to add that 30% towards his future prospects.

In all, the total income of the deceased can be calculated at

Rs.29,900/- per month. As there are four dependants, 1/4 th of the amount has to be deducted towards his personal expenditure.

Therefore, the loss of dependency can be evaluated at Rs.22,425/- per month. As rightly contended by the learned counsel, the inquest report which is marked at Ex.P6 and post-mortem report at

Ex.P7 shows that the deceased was aged 45 years as on the date of his death. Therefore, 14 is the proper and appropriate multiplier ought to have been adopted by the Tribunal. In calculating the loss of dependency, if we adopt 14 multiplier, the loss of dependency would come around Rs.37,67,400/- (22425 x 12 x 14). Therefore, we award the same towards loss of dependency as against

Rs.11,70,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 9

Further, as rightly contended by the learned counsel, compensation towards consortium and loss of love and affection awarded by the Tribunal are on the lower side. Hence, we award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium insofar as claimant No.1 is concerned and Rs.75,000/- towards loss of love and affection insofar as claimants 2 to 4 are concerned.

The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards dead body transportation and funeral expenses, which does not call for any interference. However, we add an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate.

8. Therefore, in view of the above said discussion, in all the appellants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.39,67,400/- as against a sum of Rs.12,25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The spilt up figures are as follows:

Amount(Rs.)

Loss of Dependency 37,67,400.00

Loss of consortium 1,00,000.00

Loss of Love and Affection 75,000.00

Funeral Expenses 15,000.00 10

Loss of Estate 10,000.00 Total 39,67,400.00

Accordingly, we allow the appeal in part and modify the award passed by the Tribunal by awarding a total compensation of

Rs.39,67,400/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. as against

Rs.12,25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The apportionment and deposit of the amount is as per the order of the Tribunal.

The respondent-Insurance Company has to deposit the compensation amount within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order less the amount if any already deposited before the Tribunal.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE gab