IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH MFA NO.9617/2012(MV) BETWEEN:
1. SMT. BHEMAKKA W/O LATE. THIPPESWAMY AGE 44 YEARS 2. SRI. VIJAY KUMAR S/O LATE. THIPPESWAMY AGE 29 YEARS 3. SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O LATE THIPPESWAMY AGE 26 YEARS 4. SRI. MANJUNATHA S/O LATE THIPPESWAMY AGE 24 YEARS 5. SRI. MUTHURAJ S/O LATE. THIPPESWAMY AGE 22 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT GANJIGUNTE LAMBANIHATTY VILLAGE CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522.
...APPELLANTS (BY SRI.R.SWAMYNATHAN, ADV.) AND 1. SRI. K.T. ANANTHAREDDY S/O KATTE THIMMAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS OWNER OF BUS BEARING NO.KA-16-5566(KTR BUS) R/O DODDASIDDAVVANAHALLI CHITRADURGA TALUK & DISTRICT-577 524.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO-LTD., BRANCH OFFICE SHARADA COMPLEX OPP, KSRTC BUS STAND CHITRADURGA-577 501.
….RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M.NARAYANAPPA, ADV. FOR R2, VIDE ORDER DATED: 29.03.2016 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:08.01.2010 PASSED IN MVC NO.147/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN), CHALLAKERE, 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 is filed by the claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 8.1.2010 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Challakere in MVC No.147/2008 questioning the quantum of compensation 2. Brief facts of the case:
On 18.1.2007, when deceased Thippeswamy and his relative boarded the bus bearing KA-16-5566 to reach Hiriyur from Sondekere near M.D.Kote Village, the driver of the said bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and as a result the bus turtled down. Due to the said impact, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to injuries in the hospital on 25.1.2007. Hence, the wife and children of the deceased filed claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.10,50,000/-. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, has granted compensation of Rs.3,20,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants have filed this appeal.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants-claimants submits that the deceased was doing sheep business and also doing agricultural work and earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month. But the Tribunal has committed an error in taking the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month, which is on the lower side. The deceased was aged about 48 years at the time of his death and relevant multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased is ‘13’. But the Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier as ‘12’. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.70,000/- under the conventional heads. But the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.32,000/- which is not just and reasonable. Therefore, he prays for allowing the appeal.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company submits that in the absence of the documentary evidence, the Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- and has awarded just and reasonable compensation and it does not call for any interference of this Court. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.
5. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent, the points that arise for the consideration of this Court are:
a) Whether the Court below has committed an error in not granting just and reasonable compensation and it requires interference of this Court?
b) What order?
6. Admittedly, the accident is of the year 2007 and the age of the deceased was 48 years at the time of his death in the accident. The claimants claims that the deceased was doing sheep business and agricultural work and earning Rs.6,000/- per month. Considering these facts, even in the absence of the documentary evidence, the Tribunal ought to have taken the notional income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- per month instead of Rs.3,000/-.
Since, the deceased was aged about 48 years at the time of his death in the accident, the relevant multiplier applicable is ‘13’ and not ‘12’ as applied by the Tribunal.
Regarding ‘future prospects’, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), it is settled law that if the deceased was working in an unorganized sector and if he was between the age group of 40 to 50 years, 25% has to be added to the actual income of the deceased.
Therefore, the ‘loss of dependency’ needs to be recalculated. The same is calculated as under:
Monthly income – Rs.4,000/- Add: 25% towards Future prospects - Rs.1,000/-
Less: 1/3rd towards - Rs.5,000/-
Personal expenses - Rs.1,667/-
- Rs.3,333/-
Loss of dependency = Rs.5,19,948/-
(Rs.3,333x12x13) 7. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.32,000/- under the conventional heads. As per the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants are entitled for a compensation of Rs.70,000/- under the conventional heads.
8. Thus, the claimants are entitled for the following compensation:
9. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER (i) The appeal is partly allowed.
(ii) The judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified granting the compensation of Rs.5,89,948/- as against Rs.3,20,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
(iii) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation within eight weeks.
(iv) The apportionment of the compensation shall be made in terms of the award of the Tribunal.
Sd/- JUDGE DM