IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.7342 OF 2017 (MV) BETWEEN:
1. Rangaswami, S/o Muthegowda, Aged about 52 years, 2. Jayamma, W/o. Rangaswami, Aged about 50 years, Both are residing at: Kenchattalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Hassan Taluk-573 201.
... Appellants (By Sri.Shripad.V.Shastri, Advocate) AND:
1. Balaraj, S/o. Ananda, KEB Quarters, Shanthigrama, Hassan Taluk, Hassan-573 201.
(Owner of the car Bearing No.KA-31-M-5210) 2. Universal Sompo Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd., City Trade Centre I Floor, Behind CT Hospital, Kadri, Mangaluru-584 201.
(Policy No.2311/22069255/00/00 Valid From 05.05.2015 to 04.05.2016) ... Respondents (By Sri.B.Pradeep, Advocate for R-2; Notice to R1 d/w) . . . . . .
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act against the judgment and award dated 02.05.2016 passed in MVC No.1060/2015 on the file of the 5th Additional District and Sessions Judge/Additional MACT, Hassan, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
This Miscellaneous First Appeal coming on for Admission, this day, the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for the appellants and respondent No.2, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. Factual matrix of the appeal are as under:
It is stated in the claim petition that on 25.05.2015 at about 12.00 noon hours, the deceased Ravi was proceeding on his mother-cycle bearing No.KA-13/V-0748 in front of the shop belonging to one Rathna in Kenchattalli village. At the relevant point of time, the driver of the offending car bearing No.KA-31/M-5210, i.e., Maruthi Swift drove the same in a rash and negligent manner from Bengaluru on B.M.Road and hit on the motor-cycle of the deceased Ravi and caused the accident. Due to the impact, deceased fell down from his motor-cycle and suffered severe injuries and breathed his last on the spot.
3. The deceased by avocation is an Agriculturist and also doing Coolie work. He used to maintain the entire family of the petitioners from his income. But due to the death of Ravi, the family members of said Ravi have suffered great loss. Subsequently, the claim petition was filed by the L.Rs of the deceased before the Tribunal, urging various grounds and seeking compensation.
4. On issuance of notice on the respondents, both the respondents had entered their appearance and filed their written statement in detail by resisting the claim petition filed by the petitioners seeking compensation as there is no rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending Maruthi Swift car and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed the issues and subsequently given findings by assigning reasons and awarded compensation to the claimants which is reflected in the impugned Judgment and Award made by the Tribunal.
5. Petitioner No.1 was examined as P.W.1 and Sri.Shivaprakash was examined as P.W.2 on behalf of the petitioners. In order to establish their case against the respondents, they got marked seven documents in Exs.P.1 to P.7. Respondents did not prefer to lead any evidence and mark any document in support of their case. Ex.P.5 is the P.M.Report said to be issued by the doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body. Ex.P.3 is the inquest mazahar held by the police officer, chargesheet has been laid against the driver of Maruthi Swift Car. Considering the evidence of the witnesses and on going through the documents marked, the Tribunal has awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.5,28,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization, which is reflected in the impugned Judgment and Award made by the Tribunal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants, during the course of his argument, has taken me through the evidence of P.W.1 and submitted that the monthly earnings of deceased Ravi taken at Rs.6,000/- p.m., is on the lower side. Therefore, it requires to be interfered. It is further contended that 50% of the earnings of the deceased had to be added to the monthly earnings while assessing loss of future prospects. While assessing the compensation towards loss of dependency as the parents have lost their son, Tribunal ought to have adopted multiplier 17 instead of 13 as is applicable to the age of deceased, but it has not been considered by the Tribunal. On these grounds urged by learned counsel for the appellants, they are seeking enhancement of compensation under all the heads.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has vehemently contended and submitted that as per the evidence of eye-witness P.W.2- Shivaprakash-uncle of deceased, deceased has seen the car coming in a rash and negligent manner from 50 feet. Whereas deceased himself was driving the motor-cycle in a rash and negligent manner. As regards the age, occupation and income of the deceased are concerned, they are also categorically denied. It is contended that the parents of the deceased were not his dependents. On these grounds, he prays for dismissal of the appeal as devoid of merits.
8. In this backdrop, it is relevant to note that on perusal of the evidence and material available on record, the driver of Maruthi Swift car bearing No.KA- 31/M-5210 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident, as a result of which, deceased Ravi died on the spot. As per Ex.P.5-P.M report, death is due to hemorrhage and shock as a result of multiple injuries sustained. The Tribunal has taken notional income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/-
p.m. As he was a bachelor, deducting 50% towards personal expenses, taking multiplier 13, has awarded a sum of Rs.1,68,000/- towards loss of dependency. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- towards transportation of dead body, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.25,000/- towards loss of love and affection and a sum of Rs.10,000/- under the head loss of estate.
9. As the accident is of the year 2015 and the deceased was a bachelor aged 29 years, his income can be safely fixed at Rs.9,000/- p.m. Keeping in view the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, 40% of the income has to be added to the monthly earnings to arrive at compensation towards loss of future prospects. Thus, the income of the deceased can be taken as Rs.12,600/- p.m. (Rs.9,000/- + 40% of Rs.9,000/-) 50% of income has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased as he died as a bachelor. Compensation awarded under other conventional heads is reasonable and remains undisturbed. Thus, the appellants are entitled for compensation towards different heads as under:
Thus, in all, the appellants-claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.13,45,200-00 as against Rs.5,28,000/- awarded by the tribunal.
10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.
In modification of the impugned judgment and award dated 02.05.2016 passed by the V Addl. District and Sessions Judge/Addl. MACT at Hassan in MVC No.1060/2015, the compensation payable to the appellants-claimants is enhanced from Rs.5,28,000/-
to Rs.13,45,200-00. The enhanced compensation would come to Rs.8,17,200/-. Respondent No.2- insurer shall deposit the enhanced compensation with interest before the tribunal within four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment and on such deposit, the same shall be disbursed to the appellants-claimants, on proper identification. However, the impugned judgment and award, in so far as it relates to the rate of interest, apportionment and deposit is concerned, shall remain unaltered.
There shall be no order as to the costs. Office to draw the decree accordingly.
SD/- JUDGE bnv*