Page 1

1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 348-349 OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 4897-4898 OF 2014)

SMT.NEETA W/O KALLAPPA  KADOLKAR & ORS.ETC.        …APPELLANTS

Vs.

THE DIV. MANAGER, MSRTC, KOLHAPUR …RESPONDENT       

J U D G M E N T

     V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.

Leave granted.

 2. The appellants have filed these appeals against  

the  impugned  common  judgment  and  order  dated  

05.06.2013 passed in M.F.A. No. 21286 of 2012 (MV)  

C/W M.F.A. No. 21290 of 2012 by the High Court of  

Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Dharwad, wherein the High  

Court has partly allowed the appeals filed by the

Page 2

2

appellants.

3. The necessary relevant facts are stated hereunder  

to  appreciate  the  case  with  a  view  to  ascertain  

whether the appellants are entitled to the relief of  

enhancement  of  compensation  as  prayed  in  these  

appeals.

    On 22.03.2011, the deceased Kallappa Gunavant  

Kadolkar, and his cousin Vijay Kadolkar (both aged  

about 33 years) were returning from Shinnoli village  

towards their village Kangrali BK on their motor-bike  

bearing registration no.KA-22-W-9244, when the MSRTC  

bus, bearing registration no.MH-14-BT-1541, came from  

the opposite direction and collided with their motor  

cycle, resulting in the death of both the deceased.

4. On filing the M.V.C. Nos.1991/2011 and 1582/2011  

by the claimants before the Fast Track Court-III &  

Additional M.A.C.T., Belgaum, the Tribunal, by its  

common judgment and order dated 06.02.2012, awarded  

compensation  amounting  to  Rs.7,68,000/-  and  

Rs.7,88,000/- respectively, with interest at the rate  

of 8% p.a. by taking the monthly income of both the

Page 3

3

deceased at Rs.4,500/- p.m. Aggrieved by the same,  

the  appellants  filed  the  appeals  before  the  High  

Court. The High Court party allowed the appeals of  

the appellants by re-assessing the monthly income of  

both the deceased at Rs.6000/- p.m. and it deducted  

1/4th of the income towards personal expenses (as per  

Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation &  

Anr.1). The multiplier of 16 was taken to compute the  

compensation as both the deceased were aged about 33  

years and awarded the compensation of Rs.9,09,000/-  

each, in both the cases to the claimants, with 8%  

interest  p.a.  Not  satisfied  with  the  quantum  of  

compensation awarded by the High Court to them, these  

appeals  are  filed  by  the  appellants  before  this  

Court.

5.  Mr. Nitin S. Tambwekar, the learned counsel on  

behalf  of  the  appellants  contended  that  the  

appellants in M.F.A. No. 21286/2012, are the wife,  

minor  child  and  parents  of  the  deceased  Kallappa  

Kadolkar and the appellants in M.F.A. No. 21290/2012  

are the wife, 3 minor children and the mother of the  

1  (2009)6 SCC 121

Page 4

4

deceased Vijay Kadolkar. Both the deceased were aged  

about 33 years and were skilled workers as they have  

been  working  as  carpenters.  It  has  been  further  

contended that the deceased were the only earning  

members  of  their  families  and  both  were  hale  and  

healthy  prior  to  the  accident  that  occurred  on  

22.03.2011 and that both the Tribunal and the High  

Court  have  erred  in  assessing  the  income  of  the  

deceased  as  Rs.4,500/-  p.m.  and  Rs.6000/-  p.m.  

respectively, as against Rs.15,000/- p.m. as claimed  

by the appellants. It has been further contended by  

the learned counsel on behalf of the appellants that  

both  the  Tribunal  and  Appellate  Court  have  not  

considered the age of both the deceased and also the  

fact that they were spending all their income in the  

welfare  of  their  family  members.  Hence,  it  is  

contended by the learned counsel that the quantum of  

compensation awarded by the courts below is not just  

and reasonable and therefore the same is required to  

be enhanced on the basis of the legal evidence on  

record  and  the  law  laid  down  by  this  Court  in  a  

catena of cases laying down the guiding principles

Page 5

5

for taking the monthly income of the deceased for  

computation  and  award  of  just  and  reasonable  

compensation in the absence of documentary evidence  

on record.

6.  On the other hand, it is the contention of Mr.  

R.S.  Hegde,  the  learned  counsel  on  behalf  of  the  

respondent-Corporation that the Tribunal and the High  

Court, after critically evaluating the evidence on  

record  have  awarded  the  just  and  reasonable  

compensation in favour of the appellants. Further,  

the amount awarded under the conventional heads is  

very much on the higher side and therefore required  

to be reduced by taking judicial note of the same.

7.  On  the  basis  of  the  aforesaid  rival  legal  

contentions, the evidence on record and the reasons  

assigned by the Tribunal and Appellate Court in the  

impugned  judgments  and  awards  in  awarding  the  

compensation in favour of the appellants, we are of  

the view that both the High Court and the Tribunal  

have erred in assessing the monthly income of both  

the deceased at Rs.6,000/- p.m. and Rs.4,500 p.m.

Page 6

6

respectively,  for  the  purpose  of  awarding  

compensation under the head of loss of dependency of  

the appellants.

8. The Tribunal and the Appellate Court rightly came  

to  the  conclusion  on  the  basis  of  the  material  

evidence  on  record  that  the  death  of  both  the  

deceased  occurred  due  to  the  rash  and  negligent  

driving of the bus by the driver of the respondent-

Corporation. Hence, we have to consider the claim of  

the  appellants  to  award  the  just  and  reasonable  

quantum of compensation in favour of the appellants  

by taking the guiding principles laid down by this  

Court.  The  learned  counsel  on  behalf  of  the  

appellants has contended that both the Tribunal and  

the Appellate Court have erred in not awarding the  

just and reasonable compensation based on the legal  

evidence  on  record  with  regard  to  their  monthly  

income as they have been doing the skilled job of  

carpentry. Added to this, it is the claim of the  

appellants  that  the  deceased  also  had  the  other  

source of agricultural income from their agricultural  

land. The High Court in exercise of its appellate

Page 7

7

jurisdiction in the appeals filed by them has not  

considered  that  the  deceased  Kallappa  had  three  

employees working under him and the deceased Vijay  

had  worked  as  an  employee  under  Shri  Prasad  

Constructions, Belgaum and he was also working as a  

carpenter  under  different  contractors.  The  said  

evidence  on  record  remained  unchallenged  by  the  

respondent-Corporation  and  there  is  no  rebuttal  

evidence  adduced  by  the  respondent  disputing  the  

claim of the appellants. Thus, the Tribunal and the  

High Court have committed an error, both on facts and  

in law in not taking the correct monthly income of  

both  the  deceased  for  computation  of  loss  of  

dependency, keeping in view the fact that they were  

carpenters which is the skilled job. Therefore, the  

monthly income of the deceased taken by the Tribunal  

and  the  High  Court  for  determination  of  loss  of  

dependency is erroneous, as it is not in accordance  

with the guiding factors laid down by this Court in  

the catena of cases to arrive at the just monthly  

income earned by both the deceased in the absence of  

documentary evidence.  Therefore, the same is liable

Page 8

8

to be set aside and it has to be properly determined  

by taking the gross income of both the deceased. The  

Tribunal and the High Court even in the absence of  

the salary slip/certificate ought to have taken the  

monthly salary of both the deceased at Rs.12,000/-  

p.m.  keeping in view, the Minimum Wages Act, 1948  

notification, wherein, the State of Karnataka on the  

basis  of  the  said  notification  for  the  relevant  

period, had fixed the minimum wage of the carpenters  

in their report, which is a skilled job in the Zone-

II and the deceased were working in the aforesaid  

Zone, at Belgaum District, during the relevant period  

of their death. Further, it should have been noted by  

both the Tribunal and the Appellate Court that the  

minimum wages fixed in the notification is not fair  

wage and therefore, they could have taken the monthly  

salary on the basis of real wages that were being  

paid in the absence of documentary proof on the basis  

of speculation. They should have taken the reasonable  

monthly income of the deceased for the purpose of  

computation of just and reasonable compensation in  

favour of the appellants.  In addition to the above

Page 9

9

said income, it is stated by the learned counsel on  

behalf of the appellants that the deceased were also  

carrying on with the agricultural occupation in their  

agricultural land, which is the additional source of  

income  which  ought  to  have  been  taken  into  

consideration by the courts below.

 9.  Further, in the case of Vimal Kanwar & Ors. v.  

Kishore Dan & Ors.2, this Court has held as under:-

“31. In  New  India  Assurance  Co.  Ltd. this  Court  noticed  that the High Court determined  the  compensation  by  granting  100% increase in the income of  the  deceased.  Taking  into  consideration the fact that in  the normal course, the deceased  would have served for 22 years  and  during  that  period  his  salary  would  have  certainly  doubled, upheld the judgment of  the High Court….”

Taking the principle laid down in the aforesaid case,  

the  deceased  would  have  served  another  25  years,  

during that period their salary would have certainly  

doubled, which is the view taken by this Court in the  

case of  New India Assurance Co. Ltd.  v. Gopali &  

2  (2013) 7 SCC 476

Page 10

10

Ors.3 Keeping in view the aforesaid statement of law  

laid down in the aforesaid cases and monthly income  

of the deceased who were doing the skilled job of  

carpentry and added to that income, the income that  

was  derived  from  the  agricultural  occupation  from  

their agricultural land and future prospects as held  

by this Court in the above case, it would be just and  

proper for this Court to assess their monthly income  

at  Rs.12,000/-  p.m.  each  for  the  purpose  of  

computation of loss of dependency. Further, in view  

of the law laid down by this Court in the case of  

Santosh Devi  v. National Insurance Company Ltd. &  

Ors.4, this Court has ruled that even in the case of  

private employment, the future prospects can be taken  

into  consideration  to  determine  the  loss  of  

dependency. Having regard to the age of the deceased,  

the same shall be added to the annual income of the  

deceased  to  determine  the  just  and  reasonable  

compensation  under  the  heading  of  the  loss  of  

dependency.  

   Therefore, it would be just and proper to take  3  (2012) 12 SCC 198 4  (2012) 6 SCC 421

Page 11

11

the aforesaid additional income from the agricultural  

occupation and future prospects as claimed by the  

appellants  on  the  basis  of  speculation  and  

presumption and apply the multiplier 16, as the same  

is applicable in view of the age of the deceased as  

33 years as on the date of their death, which is  

sworn to by the witnesses who were examined before  

the Tribunal on behalf of the appellants, in respect  

of both the Claim Petitions before the Tribunal.

    Thus, the annual income of both the deceased would  

be Rs.1,44,000/- each. Deducting 1/4th of this amount  

towards  their  personal  expenses,  in  order  to  

determine the loss of dependency and keeping in view  

the age of the minor children, their widowed wives  

and the aged parents, as their units will be  4 and 5  

respectively, as provided in the Sarla Verma (supra)  

case,  the  balance  amount  comes  to  Rs.1,08,000/-

[(1,44,000/-  (-)  Rs.36,000/-  (1/4th of  

Rs.1,44,000/-)]. Therefore, the loss of dependency of  

the appellants by applying the appropriate multiplier  

of 16, comes to Rs.17,28,000/- (Rs. 1,08,000/- X 16).

Page 12

12

10. Further, we award Rs.1,00,000/- to each of the  

appellant-children,  i.e.  Rs.1,00,000/-  and  

Rs.3,00,000/-  respectively,  as  per  the  principles  

laid down by this Court in the case of Jiju Kuruvila  

& Ors.  v. Kunjujamma Mohan & Ors.5 towards loss of  

love and affection of the deceased father. Further,  

an amount of Rs.50,000/- each is to be awarded to the  

parents of the deceased for the loss of love and  

affection of their deceased son as per the principles  

laid down by this Court in the case of M. Mansoor &  

Anr.  v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd6.  We further  

award Rs.25,000/- each towards funeral expenses of  

both the deceased as held by this Court in the case  

of Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors.7

  11. The appellants are also entitled to the interest  

on the compensation awarded by this Court in these  

appeals at the rate of 9% p.a. along with the amount  

under the different heads as indicated above. The  

courts below have erred in awarding the interest at  

the rate of 8% p.a. on the compensation awarded by  

5  (2013) 9 SCC 166 6  (2103) 12 SCALE 324 7  (2013) 9 SCC 54

Page 13

13

them to the appellants without following the decision  

of  this  Court  in Municipal  Corporation  of  Delhi,  

Delhi v. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association & Ors.8.  

Accordingly, we award the interest at the rate of 9%  

p.a. on the compensation determined in these appeals  

from the date of filing of the application till the  

date of payment.

12. In the result, the appellants shall be entitled  

to compensation under the following heads:

Sl.No. Heads Claimants of Kallappa Claimants of  

Vijay

1. Loss of  dependency     

Rs.17,28,000/- Rs.17,28,000/-

2. Funeral  Expenses  

Rs.25,000/- Rs.25,000/-

3. Loss  of  love  and affection (children)

Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.3,00,000/-

 4. Loss  of  love  and affection (parents)

Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.50,000/-

5. Loss of  estate

Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.1,00,000/-

6. Loss of  consortium

Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.1,00,000/-

Total Rs.21,53,000/- Rs.23,03,000/-

13.  Thus,  the  total  compensation  payable  to  the  

8  (2011) 14 SCC 481

Page 14

14

claimants of the deceased Kallappa and Vijay, by the  

respondent-Transport  Corporation  will  be  

Rs.21,53,000/- and Rs.23,03,000/- respectively, with  

interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the  

application till the date of payment.  

14.  Accordingly, we allow these appeals in the above  

said  terms.  The  compensation  awarded  shall  be  

apportioned amongst the appellants on the enhanced  

compensation  in  terms  of  the  award  passed  by  the  

Tribunal. The respondent-Transport Corporation shall  

either  pay  the  amount  of  compensation  by  way  of  

demand draft/drafts in favour of the appellants or  

deposit the same with interest as awarded, even on  

the enhanced compensation before the Motor Accidents  

Claims Tribunal after deducting the amount already  

paid to the appellants within six weeks from the date  

of receipt of the copy of this judgment. No costs.

…………………………………………………………J.                                    [V.GOPALA GOWDA]

 ………………………………………………………J.                                    [C.NAGAPPAN]

Page 15

15

    New Delhi,      January 13, 2015