IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. L.NARAYANA SWAMY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APEAL NO.517 OF 2018 (MV - D) BETWEEN:
SMT. CHANDRAMMA, W/O LATE GOVINDA SWAMY, NOW AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NEAR BUS STOP, OPP. GOVERNMENT SCHOOL, JIGANI, BANGALORE.
AND ALSO RESIDING AT MANJAPATTUR, THIRUVANAMALLI TALUK, SHANKARAPURAM DISTRICT, TAMILNADU STATE. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. N.R.RANGE GOWDA, ADV.) AND:
1. CHANNAKESHAVA, FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN, NO.280, JANATHA COLONY, 2ND CROSS, B.G.ROAD, POST OFFICE ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 076.
2. THE MANAGER, IFFCO – TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., SRISHANTHI TOWERS, CUSTOMER SERVICE CENTRE, 5TH FLOOR, N.G.E.F. LAYOUT, KASTHURINAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 025. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.B.PRADEEP, ADV., FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 04.04.2019) *** THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.08.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.6605/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI A.C.M.M., & XXIII A.S.C.J., 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 The widow of the deceased Govinda Swamy who died in a road traffic accident on 01.09.2013 filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. The said claim petition was contested by the insurer of the offending vehicle.
2. During enquiry before the Tribunal, the claimant-appellant herein has established the fact of occurrence of accident, actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle bearing No.KA.05 Z- 6986 and its insurance with the second respondent herein.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that income of the deceased taken by the Tribunal at Rs.4,000/- p.m., to determine the compensation payable towards ‘loss dependency’ is on the lower side. Further, the compensation of Rs.25,000/-awarded under conventional head is on lower side. Hence, he seeks for enhancement of compensation.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the second respondent-insurer argued in support of the impugned judgment. Further he submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable does not call for interference.
5. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the accident is of the year 2013. Though it was claimed that deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- p.m. by working as Mason, there was no documentary proof in support of income of the deceased. Under such circumstances it would be just and appropriate to asses the notional income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- p.m. Since the deceased was aged about 55 years at the time of accident, 10% is to be added towards future prospects as per dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi. Thus, income of the deceased would come to Rs. 8,800/-. The family of the deceased consists one member hence 1/3rd is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. Hence, the compensation payable towards ‘loss of dependancy’ would come to Rs.7,74,400/- (Rs.8800X2/3X12X11) as against Rs.5,28,000/-. The compensation of Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under conventional head is on the lower side. It would be just and proper to award a sum of Rs. 70,000/-. Thus, the claimant-appellant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.8,44,400/- as against Rs.6,53,000/-. Consequently, the appeal is entitled to be allowed in part.
6. In modification of the impugned judgment and award dated 22.08.2017 passed by the XXI A.C.M.M. & XXIII A.S.C.J. Bangaluru in MVC No.6605/2013, the compensation payable to the claimant-appellant is enhanced from Rs. 6,53,000/- to Rs.8,44,400/-. Thus, the enhanced compensation comes to Rs.1,91,400/- which shall carry interest. The impugned judgment and award, insofar as it relates to rate of interest, apportionment and deposit is concerned shall remain unaltered.
Office to draw the decree accordingly. No order as to the cost.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HR