IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT M.F.A NO.3113 OF 2018 (MV) BETWEEN:
1. CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA @ MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, S/O LATE LAGUMAPPA 2. DYAVAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O CHIKKAMUNIYAPAA, BOTH ARE R/AT MADDERI VILALGE, VEMGAL HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK & DISTRICT …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA .K, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. S.R.RAMANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O SREERAMAPPA, NO.551, SHIVAJYOTHI NILAYA, FORT STREET, DEVANAHALLI TOWN, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., BRANCH OFFICE: SUGUNA NURSING HOME BUILDING, ANTHARGANGE MAIN ROAD, KOLAR CITY REP. BY ITS MANAGER.
(BY SRI. L.SREEKANTA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W V/O DTD 05/09/2019) …RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.02.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.12/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE MACT & II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KOLAR, 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 This appeal by the claimants calls in question the judgment & award dated 17.02.2018, whereby the MACT, Kolar, having partly favoured the claim petition in MVC No.12/2017 has awarded an illusory compensation of Rs.83,850/- with interest @ 6% p.a. thereon. After service of notice, the respondent-insurer having entered appearance through his Senior Panel Counsel Sri. L.Sreekanta Rao, opposes the Appeal.
2. Brief facts of the case:
a. In a vehicular accident that happened on 24.12.2016 at about 5.30 p.m. a young gentleman, Mr.Naveen Kumar aged 32 years, having sustained fatal injuries succumbed thereto; the first claimant being the father and the second claimant being the brother of the deceased preferred the claim petition in MVC No.12/2017 which was stoutly resisted by filing the Statement of Objections by the insurer;
b. to prove the claim, the first claimant Mr.
Muniyappa, was examined as PW1 and in his evidence, 16 documents came to be marked as Exs. P1 to P16, which inter alia comprised of Police Papers, Medical Bills, Post Mortem Report and RTO papers. None was examined from the side of the insurer nor the insured nor any document was produced;
c. the MACT having adverted to pleadings of the parties and having weighed the evidentiary material on record has entered judgment & award that are put in challenge on the ground of inadequacy of compensation.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the appeal papers, compensation needs to be enhanced because:
i) there is no dispute as to the happening of the accident due to rash & negligent driving of the offending motor cycle bearing Registration No.KA-04-JE-0133; the fatal injuries caused thereby that resulted into death of an unfortunate young victim is also not in dispute; again there is no dispute as to the entitlement of the first claimant namely, Chikkamuniyappa the father of the deceased to the compensation although the second claimant-Dyavareddy, aged 42 years being the elder brother of the deceased arguably is not;
ii) the deceased was aged 32 years and consequently ‘16’ multiplier needs to be taken for the purpose of calculating compensation under the head Loss of Dependency; the Court below has awarded a ridiculous sum of Rs.83,850/- as compensation to the father who has lost his son of prime youth; the Presiding Officer of MACT has not considered the relevant principles for adjudication of the claim in a case involving the death of a young man; on what basis only this illusory sum is awarded is also not forthcoming from the judgment either. Thus, a case is made out for working out the compensation afresh as under:
Loss of Dependency = 8500X1/2X12X16=8,16,000/-
to this, needs to be added Rs. Rs.30,000/- being the compensation under Conventional Head including medical bills in view of National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi and others reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157;
iii) the incremental value is not awarded in inasmuch as the second claimant is the elder brother of the deceased aged 42 years and therefore, he being not a dependent is not entitled to any compensation; the first claimant happens to be the father of the deceased who admittedly aged 65 years when the claim was made, mother having predeceased the victim;
iv) the contention of the claimants that even in the absence of employer having been examined or any of deceased person’s friend or colleagues being not examined, the Offer Letter dated 17.08.2016 Ex.P4 ought to have been acted upon by the MACT is bit difficult to countenance the same is the case with other employment documents;
In the above circumstances, this appeal succeeds; the impugned judgment & award having been modified the compensation is enhanced from Rs.83,850/- to Rs.8,46,000/- (Eight Lakhs and Forty Six Thousand Rupees) only with interest @ 6.5% p.a.
The MACT shall keep a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- from out of the compensation amount in a long term interest earning fixed deposit scheme in any nationalized bank with condition that monthly interest would be received by the claimant- father; rest of the amount shall be released in favour of the first claimant namely Chikkamuniyappa @ Muniyappa.
Sd/- JUDGE DS