IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.5937/2018 (MV) BETWEEN:
1. Smt. Abida Wife of late Vajira Aged about 50 years 2. Najiya Daughter of late Vajira Aged about 25 years Both are residents of Meenakshipura Village, Kasaba Hobli Tumakuru Taluk and District-577 101 ... Appellants (By Sri M.B. Ryakha, Advocate) AND:
1. Pushpalatha, major W/o Shivegowda Aged about 46 years Resident of No.441 Sri Raghavendra Nilaya Near Helipad, Udayagiri C.R. Patna Taluk Hassan District-573 116 2. The Branch Manager Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited Emka Shalimar Complex 3rd Floor, Kankanaday Mangaluru-575 002. .. Respondents (By Sri Ravi S Samprathi, Advocate for R2, Notice to R1 – D/W) This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act against the judgment and award dated 01.03.2018 passed in MVC No.1095/2016 on the file of the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge and Member MACT, Tumakuru, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
This MFA coming on for admission this day, the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT This appeal filed by the claimants is directed against the judgment and award dated 1.03.2018 passed in MVC No.1095/2016 on the file of the VI Additional District & Sessions Judge and Member MACT, at Tumakuru, whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum Rs.3,03,000/- towards compensation on account of death of late Vajira, aged about 66 years in a road traffic accident that occurred on 02.04.2016.
2. Though the matter is listed for admission, with the consent of both the leaned counsel, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
3. Both the learned counsel submit that the occurrence of accident as well as coverage of policy of the offending vehicle by the respondent No.2 – Insurance Company is not in dispute and that the appeal is restricted to quantum of compensation awarded in favour of the appellants.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company and perused the material on record.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the Tribunal committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the notional income of the deceased is to be taken as Rs.6,000/- p.m. In this context, learned counsel invited my attention to the guidelines of the Lok Adalath, which stipulates that in respect of the accident that occurred in the year 2016, notional income is to be taken as Rs.9,500/- p.m. Accordingly, appellants would be entitled to additional enhanced compensation in this regard.
6. It is also contended that the Tribunal has awarded compensation under the head of loss of consortium which is very meager.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 – Insurance Company would support the impugned judgment and award.
8. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellants, the Tribunal has committed an error in taking notional income as Rs.6,000/- p.m. instead of 9,500/- p.m. in view of the Lok Adalat guidelines which stipulates that the notional income in respect of the accident that occurred in the year 2016 is to be taken as Rs.9,500/- p.m. Accordingly appellants should be entitled for a total sum of Rs.3,80,000/- towards loss of dependency as hereunder:
Rs.9500 x 1/3= 3,166 Rs.9,500-3,166= 6,334 x12 x 5 x = Rs.3,80,040 9. The Tribunal also committed error in not awarding compensation under the head of loss of filial consortium for claimant No.2-daughter as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram [2018 ACJ 2782] Accordingly, appellants who are the wife and daughter of the deceased Vajira are entitled for a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards filial consortium.
10. Under these circumstances, the compensation payable to the appellants are hereunder:
1 Loss dependency Rs. 3,80,000/-
2 Conventional heads Rs. 70,000/-
3 Loss of Consortium Rs. 30,000/- Total Rs.4,80,000/-
The Tribunal having awarded Rs.3,03,000/-, the appellants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.1,77,000/- by way of additional enhanced compensation.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, I pass the following:
ORDER i) Appeal is hereby partly allowed.
ii) The judgment and award dated 01.03.2018 passed in MVC No.1095/2016, on the file of the VI Additional District & Sessions Judge and Member, MACT, at Tumakuru, is hereby modified awarding additional enhanced compensation in favour of the appellants in a sum of Rs.1,77,000/- together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization.
Apportionment and disbursement is as per the direction of the Tribunal.
Sd/- JUDGE HR