IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO M.F.A.No.3829 OF 2019 (MV) BETWEEN:
The Divisional Manager M/s. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., S.S.Complex, Subash Circle Hassan Now represented by its The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office TP HUB The Sumangala complex Leo shopping complex Residency road cross Bangalore – 560 025 (By Sri.H.C.Vrushabhendraiah, Advocate) AND:
1. Smt. Manchamma Aged about 65 years W/o. late Narasappa @ Narasimhaiah Someswaranagara (Siddapura) R/o. No.59, 7th cross Sampangi Ramanagara Bengaluru ...Appellant Present R/o. Alabowdanahalli village Hallimysore Hobli Holenarasipura Taluk Hassan District – 573 201 2. Madhukara Aged about 43 years S/o. late Krishnappa Keralapura road Dr.Ambedkar nagara Holenarasipura Hassan district – 573 211 3. Thejas Aged about 35 years S/o. Shankarappa Bachanahalli village Hallimysore Hobli Holenarasipura taluk Hassan district – 573 211 4. Venkatesh B S/o. Chandrashekar B No.148, T.B.Road Narasimharajapura Town Chickmagalur district - 577101 …Respondents (By Sri S.Rajashekar, Advocate for R2 and R3) This MFA is filed u/S 173 (1) of MV Act, against the judgment and award dated 28.02.2019, passed in MVC No.1827/2014, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC and MACT, Holenarasipura, awarding compensation of Rs.6,31,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit.
This MFA Coming on for final hearing this day, the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 28.02.2019 passed in MVC No.1827/2014 by the learned Member, Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal and Senior Civil Judge, Holenarasipura, wherein, the claim petition came to be allowed-in-part by awarding compensation of Rs.6,31,000/- in favour of the claimant together with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.
2. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, insurance company has come up before this Court in this appeal.
3. In order to avoid confusion and overlapping, hereinafter the parties are referred in accordance with their status before the Tribunal.
4. The facts leading to initiating legal proceedings before the MACT are that on 07.07.2014, at about 06:00 p.m. one Manja was traveling in an Auto-rickshaw bearing No.KA-18-A-8525 at Alagowdanahalli tank, between Holenarasipura – Mysuru road, at that time, the driver of the said auto-rickshaw drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, due to which the driver of the auto has lost the control over the auto and the auto was capsized. Because of which the said Manja, fell down and sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the said injuries.
5. It is claimed that before the accident, the deceased Manja was hale and healthy and by working as Mason, he was earning a sum of Rs.500 per day. The claimant also stated that an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- spent towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses.
6. Respondents contested the matter. The learned Member considering the oral and documentary evidence available on file partly allowed the petition by awarding compensation as mentioned above.
7. Sri.H.C.Vrushabhendraiah, learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company would submit that the claimant is residing in Bengaluru along with her daughter and accident happened at Alagowdanahalli, Holenarasipura Taluk and that the MACT has no jurisdiction to try the claim petition and to award compensation. Further, he submits that the deceased is not a natural son of the claimant and on the other hand, she is the stepmother of deceased and she is a second wife of late Narasappa @ Narasimhaiah, who is the father of the deceased. He also submitted that being the stepmother, the claimant is not entitled to claim compensation for the death of stepson, as she cannot be the dependent nor she was depending upon the income of the deceased Manja for her livelihood and sought for allowing the appeal.
8. In my considered view, the persons who are entitled for compensation amount under the Motor Vehicles Act are dependants and there is an ample difference between dependants and legal heir.
9. Legal representatives would be entitled to the estate of the deceased irrespective of their relationship whether he or she is dependant or not. On the other hand, in order to be a dependant certain times, the legal representative may not be entitled for compensation, in case non-earning person died and his Class-I legal heir is earning abundant money by way of his or her income, they may claim dependency. There is no such kind of narration regarding the dependency as to pre-existing a particular kind of relationship. Deceased is said to be a stepson of the claimant and her case is that she was depending on him. The court is not adjudicating the fact of legal heirship and existing relationship and adjudicating solely on the basis of dependency. In the whole circumstances, I find there is no legal force in the contention of counsel for insurance company that stepmother is not entitled for compensation in the absence of dependency.
10. Regarding the quantum of compensation is concerned, the monthly income of deceased was considered by the tribunal at Rs.6,000/- and 50% was deducted towards personal and living expenses and the compensation amount towards loss of dependency worked out to Rs.6,000/- - 50% = 3,000/- and 3,000 x 12 x 16=5,76,000 and total compensation granted at Rs.6,31,000/-.
11. It is necessary to mention that the Motor Vehicles Act, is a social legislation and the very object of the same is to ensure that legally entitled person may get just compensation. Further, tribunals and the courts are under an obligation and are duty bound to ensure that the claimants get just compensation.
12. Even when the claim is made for lesser amount, then it is the duty of the court to grant the compensation may be more than what is being sought for, because the object is to meet the ends of justice in granting just compensation. Doctrine of fair and just compensation is to be enlarged and it is necessary to note that deceased was aged about 33 years as on the date of the accident and on the perusal of judgments rendered in SARLA VERMA V/s DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION – 2009 ACJ 1298 and in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., VS. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS REPORTED IN 2017 ACJ 2700, the claimant is entitled for compensation on the ground of future prospects also, but the tribunal has lost sight of the said aspect and his monthly income is assessed at Rs.6,000/- which is very meager and invariably, he should have been made entitled to future prospects at 40%, before deducting 50% of the monthly income, it was bounden duty of the tribunal to have added 40% of monthly income of the deceased and it is worked out to Rs.8,400/-, (if 40% added to the monthly at Rs.6,000 it comes to Rs.2,400 and Rs.6,000+2,400=Rs.8,400/-) and 50% is to be deducted, it is Rs.4,200/-. If monthly income is reckoned at Rs.4,200/- per month, the compensation towards loss of dependency would be Rs.4,200/- x 12 i.e., Rs.50,400/- x 16 = Rs.8,06,400/- and when the compensation awarded by the tribunal under the Conventional head at Rs.30,000/- is added, the total compensation comes to Rs.8,36,400/- and that would be the fair and just compensation for which the claimant was entitled. Learned member of the tribunal though was right in partly allowing the claim petition, but committed serious error in not properly assessing the compensation.
13. The next factor would be even though notice was dispatched to the claimant, she is not before the court nor she has preferred an appeal. No matter, even in the absence of such appearance, eligible compensation may be granted and no embargo on the courts in connection with enhancement of compensation. Even in the absence of appeal filed by the claimant, it cannot be considered as separate cause of action and the Court must proceeds on the primary one. Thus, following the doctrine of just compensation, I have no hesitation in holding that the claimant would be entitled for just and fair compensation at Rs.8,36,400/-. The compensation granted by tribunal at Rs.6,31,000/- is enhanced to Rs.8,36,400/-. Thus, the claimant is invariably entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.2,05,400/- together with interest at 9% per annum.
14. No further proceeding is necessary for adjudicating the appeal and it is liable to be rejected at this stage itself.
Accordingly, the same is rejected.
However, the appellant-insurance company is directed to pay the total compensation including enhanced compensation of Rs.2,05,400/- with interest at 9% per annum to the claimant. Balance compensation amount shall be deposited by the appellant-insurance company within four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the tribunal.
Sd/- JUDGE HJ