IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7032/2009 (MV) BETWEEN:
1. ABDULLA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O ABBU SALI 2. REHANA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, D/O LATE MAIMUNA 3. NASEENA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, D/O LATE MAIMUNA 4. SABANA AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, D/O LATE MAIMUNA 5. AISHA AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, D/O LATE MAIMUNA 6. KABEER AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, S/O LATE MAIMUNA ALL ARE R/A MULGOLI HOUSE, DUGAN THOTA, MULOOR, POST. UCHILA, UDUPI TQ & DIST. ... APPELLANTS (By Sri:H PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. B NARAYANA BHAT AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O B.RAMDAS BHAT R/O PANCHARATHNA, 11/842, NODU HOUSE, BIJAI, MANGALORE-4 2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD BRANCH-I, KULYADI BUILDING, K.S RAO ROAD, HAMPANKATA, MANGALORE REP BY ITS NEAREST D.M D.O @ UDUPI, VISHNA PRAKASH BUILDING, 2ND & 3RD FLOOR, COURT ROAD, UDUPI 3. AHMED BAVA S/O HUSSAIN ABBU KOE HOUSE, PALIMAR UDUPI TQ. & DIST. (OWNER OF MAXICAB BEARING REG.NO.KA 20/5127) 4. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD REP BY DIVISIONAL MANAGER SRI RAM ARCADE, OPP. H.P.O UDUPI (INSURANCE CO. WITH WHICH MAXICAB BEARING REG.NO.
KA-20/5127 WAS INSURED) ... RESPONDENTS (VIDE ORDER DATED 10.01.2011, NOTICE TO R1 & R3 DISPENSED WITH.
SRI: R.RAJAGOPALAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2; AND SRI: O.MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:30.6.2009 PASSED IN MVC NO.983/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) & ADDL. MACT, UDUPI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 14.06.2017 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA. J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
J U D G M E N T This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 30.6.2009 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Udupi in MVC No.983/2007 awarding a compensation of Rs.3,37,000/- to the claimants as against the compensation of Rs.4,11,500/- claimed in the petition filed under section 166 of MV Act.
2. The claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased Maimuna, who succumbed to the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 28.5.2007. There is no dispute regarding the factum of the accident and the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle namely bus bearing registration No.KA- 19/D-3353 which resulted in the death of the aforesaid Maimuna and other inmates of the Maxi Cab bearing registration No.KA-20/5127 in which the deceased is stated to have been traveling at the time of the accident. The learned Addl. MACT has fastened the liability jointly on the first and second respondents viz., the owner and the insurer of the involved bus bearing registration No.KA 19/D-3353.
3. The first and second respondents have not preferred any independent appeal challenging the findings recorded by the learned Addl. MACT. This appeal, therefore, is confined only for enhancement of the compensation.
4. The learned counsel for the claimants/appellants has placed reliance on the following decisions viz., (i) Shashikala & Others vs. Gangalakshmamma & Another, (2015) 9 SCC 150 (ii) Rajesh & Others vs. Rajbir Singh & Others, (2013) 9 SCC 54 (iii) Reshma Kumari & Others vs. Madan Mohan & Another, (2013) 9 SCC 65 5. I have gone through the above decisions and have scrutinized the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Addl. MACT. The learned counsel for the claimants/appellants has not disputed the fact that the deceased was aged 45 years at the time of the accident and that she was earning a sum of Rs.3000/-
p.m. by rolling beedies. It is seen from the impugned order that the learned Addl. MACT has deducted 1/3 of the monthly income of the deceased and by adopting a multiplier of 13, has determined the loss of dependency at Rs.3,12,000/-. This determination is in accordance with the principles laid down in Sarla Verma case as well as in the other three cases relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants. Hence, I do not find any ground to enhance the compensation under this head.
6. In so far as compensation under other conventional heads are concerned, the learned Addl. MACT has awarded a sum of Rs.5000/- towards the transportation of the dead body and funeral expenses, a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards consortium and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection. In view of the guidelines laid down in the above decisions, the compensation awarded under these heads appears to be low and requires to be revisited. In Shashikala & Others vs. Gangalakshmamma & Another, (2015) 9 SCC 150 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that substantial compensation is to be awarded under conventional damages like loss of consortium, loss of love and affection and funeral expenses by following the quantum of maintenance awarded under these heads in Rajesh & Others vs. Rajbir Singh & Others (2013) 9 SCC 54, Jiju Kuruvila vs. Kunjujamma Mohan (2013) 9 SCC 166, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses. In the said case the claimants were the wife and children and the parents of the deceased who was the only earning member in the family.
7. In the instant case, the appellant No.1, the husband of the deceased was also an earning member of the family. Nonetheless he would be entitled to receive compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the loss of consortium. As the learned Addl. MACT has awarded only Rs.10,000/- under this head, the difference amount of Rs.90,000/- under this head shall be payable to appellant No.1 as additional compensation. Further, towards the funeral expenses, another sum of Rs.15,000/- shall be paid to appellant No.1. Towards the loss of love and affection to the children of the deceased namely appellant Nos.2 to 6, they would be entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.90,000/-. Thus in all the appellants are held entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.1,95,000/-. To this extent, the appeal deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following:
ORDER The appeal is allowed-in-part. The appellants are held entitled for an enhanced compensation of Rs.1,95,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Ninety Five Thousand only). Out of this amount, a sum of Rs.1,05,000/- is payable to appellant No.1 and the remaining amount of Rs.90,000/- shall be equally apportioned between appellant Nos.2 to 6. The first and second respondents shall pay the enhanced compensation of Rs.1,95,000/- to the appellants within thirty days from the date of this order failing which the first and second respondents shall be liable to pay interest thereon at 9% p.a. from the date of this order till payment or recovery.
Sd/- JUDGE Psg/-