IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY M.F.A. No.7672/2015 [MV] BETWEEN:
1. Appaji Gowda S/o Hanume Gowda Aged about 59 years.
2. Sri Priya D/o Appaji Gowda Aged about 25 years All the above appellants are R/at No.210, 24th Cross, 16th Main, Near BDA Complex, Banashankari 2nd Stage, Bangalore-70.
...Appellants (By Sri Shripad V. Shastri, Advocate) AND:
1. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., RGIC No.28, East Wing, 5th Floor, Centenary Building, M.G. Road, Bengaluru-01, By its Manager.
2. Mr. Ravi Kumar C. S/o Chandrappa Major, R/at No.148, Sahakarnagar, Kodigehalli, Bangalore North-92.
…Respondents (By Sri H.N. Keshava Prashanth, Advocate for R1) This M.F.A. is filed under Section 173(1) OF M.V. Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 22.06.2015 passed in MVC No.2059/2014 on the file of the Member, Principal MACT, Bengaluru, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
This M.F.A. coming on for Orders this day, the Court delivered the following Judgment.
J U D G M E N T The appellants are husband and daughter of the deceased. The deceased met with an accident on 03.09.2013 at about 12.30 a.m. while she was traveling in a tempo traveler bearing No.KA.50-6483 from Namakkal to Salem and succumbed to injuries. The appellants filed claim petition in M.V.C.No.2059/2014 seeking compensation on account of death of the deceased Prema. The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.6,79,948/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Aggrieved by the same the appellants have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the actual income of the deceased was Rs.8,000/- per month by doing tailoring work. As no documentary evidence is placed before the Tribunal and the accident has taken place in the year 2013, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- p.m. The deceased was aged 48 years. Hence, sought for enhancement of compensation.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent sought to dismiss the appeal and submitted the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
5. The date and occurrence of the accident are not in dispute. The only dispute is with regard to assessing the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.5,000/- only. The occupation of the deceased is not proved. In the absence of the same and in the circumstances, I am inclined to assess the income of the deceased at Rs.7,500/- per month, considering year of the accident as 2013, members of the family and price index. It is made clear that husband is not a dependent. But the unmarried daughter is a dependant. Hence, 1/3rd is to be deducted from out of Rs.7,500/-. The appellants are entitled for a sum of Rs.7,80,000/- (Rs.7,500 x 2/3 x 12 x 13) towards loss of dependency and Rs.70,000/- is awarded towards conventional head. Hence, the appellant No.2 is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.1,70,052/- (8,50,000 – 6,79,948) apart from the compensation awarded by the Tribunal with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.
Sd/- JUDGE ap