IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.6678/2015 (MV) C/w MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.3160/2015 (MV) IN M.F.A.No.6678/2015 Between:
1. Smt. Gangamrutha W/o Late Mruthunjayappa @ Mruthunjaya, Now Aged about 30 years, 2. Kallesh T.M.
S/o Late Mruthunjayappa @ Mruthunjaya, Now Aged about 12 years, The appellant No.2 is since Minor Rept. by their Natural Guardian Mother Appellant No.1 Both are R/at Thimmalapura Village, Bellavi Hobli, Tumkuru Taluk, Tumkuru District-572 102. ... Appellants (By Sri. Rangegowda N.R., Advocate) And:
1. T.S.Renukaiah S/o Somaiah, Now Aged about 37 years, R/at Thimmalapura Village, Bellavi Hobli, Tumkur Taluk, District-572 102.
2. The Branch Manager New India Assurance Company Ltd. Tumkur Branch, Tumkur Shopping Complex, B.H.Road, Tumkur-572 102. ... Respondents (By Sri S.V. Hegde Mulkhand, Advocate for R-2 Notice to R-1 dispensed with v/o dtd. 24.04.2018) This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 30.01.2015 passed in MVC.No.590/2013 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, MACT-4, *Tumakur, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
IN M.F.A.No.3160/2015 Between:
The Branch Manager The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Tumkur Branch, Tumkur, Shopping Complex, B H Road, Tumkuru, Through its Bengaluru Regional Office, No.9/2 Mahalakshmi Chambers, 2nd floor, MG Road, Bengaluru-560 001.
Rep. by its Manager. ... Appellant (By Sri. S.V. Hegde Mulkhand., Advocate) *Corrected vide court order dated 30.01.2020 And:
1. Smt. Gangamrutha W/o Late Mruthyunjayappa @ Mruthyunjaya, Aged about 30 years, 2. Kallesh T.M.S S/o Late Mruthyunjayappa @ Mruthyunjaya, Aged about 12 years, Since respondent No.2 is the minor Rept. by his mother and natural guardian respondent No.1 herein.
Both are r/at Thimmalapura Village Bellavi Hobli, Tumkur Taluk and District-572 102.
3. T. P. Renukaiah S/o Somaiah, Aged about 37 years, R/o Thimmalapura Village, Bellavi Hobli, Tumkuru Taluk and District-572 102. ... Respondents (By Sri Rangegowda N.R., Advocate for R-1; Sri H.L. Vasanth Kumar, Advocate for R-3) This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 30.01.2015 passed in MVC.No.590/2013 on the file of III Additional District Judge, MACT-4, Tumkuru awarding a compensation of Rs.13,48,000/- with interest @ 8% PER ANNUM from the date of petition till its realization.
These appeals are coming on for Admission, this day, the Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T M.F.A.No.6678/2015 is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation and M.F.A.No.3160/2015 is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the quantum of compensation, wherein, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.13,48,000/- for the death of one Mruthunjayappa @ Mruthunjaya in a road traffic accident.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for Insurance Company.
3. The appellants are the widow and minor son of the deceased Mruthunjayappa @ Mruthunjaya. It is the case of the appellants that, on 20.04.2012, the deceased was returning to his house by riding a bicycle after finishing his coolie work at Gajendra Shamiyana Shop at Bellavi. When he reached near the petrol bunk, Bellavi- Tumkur road at about 9.00 p.m, at that time, driver of a Car bearing Registration No. KA-19-P-5100, by driving the said car in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the bicycle from backside. As a result of which, the deceased sustained severe injuries to his head and all over the body. Immediately, he was shifted to Vinayaka hospital. After taking first aid treatment, the deceased was shifted to Bengaluru D.G.Hospital, Bengaluru for higher treatment. Thereafter, he was shifted to Tumkur Government hospital on 26.04.2013. However, during the course of treatment, he succumbed to the injuries on 30.04.2013.
4. The learned counsel for the claimants submits that the deceased was aged about 38 years at the time of accident. He was earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month as an agricultural coolie and he was also having an income of Rs.1,00,000/- per annum from his land. He submits that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards ‘loss of future prospects’ and the compensation awarded under the ‘conventional heads’ are also on the lower side. Accordingly, he seeks to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-Insurance Company vehemently argued and contended that the claimants have utterly failed to establish the income of the deceased. Even otherwise, the claimants do not have any land and there is no proof that the deceased alone was cultivating the land and having an income of Rs.1,00,000/- per annum. He submits that the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on a higher side. Accordingly, he seeks to dismiss the appeal and prays to allow the appeal filed by the Insurance Company.
6. The fact that the deceased died in an accident owing to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of a car bearing registration No.KA-19-P-5100 and the said car was insured at the relevant point is not in dispute.
7. The claimants are the widow and minor son of the deceased. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased was aged about 38 years and he was having an income of Rs.10,000/- per month by doing coolie work and also having an income of Rs.1,00,000/- from his agricultural land. Ex.P7 is the RTC extract, which clearly goes to show that the land was measuring to an extent of 3 acres 38 guntas. According to the learned counsel for the claimants, the land was initially standing in the name of the deceased and subsequently, mutated in the name of 1st claimant along with other family members. In another RTC, the land was standing in the name of father of the deceased to an extent measuring 32 guntas. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the RTC extract shows the family members of the deceased were owning the agricultural land and getting the income and the deceased alone was not getting the income from the agricultural land. The said findings cannot be found fault with.
8. There is no convincing evidence with regard to the exact income of the deceased. Taking into consideration the year of accident and also considering the number of family members depending on the deceased, I am of the view that the notional income of the deceased taken by the Tribunal @ Rs.10,000/- per month is on a higher side. It is also to be noted that the deceased being aged about 38 years at the time of accident, an addition of 40% has to be made towards ‘future prospects’. Hence, the notional income of the deceased is taken @ Rs.8,000/- per month and by adding another 40% towards ‘future prospects’ and after deducting 1/3rd of the income towards ‘personal expenses’, the income of the deceased is arrived at Rs.7,467/- (8,000 + 3,200 = 11,200 – 3,733). The appropriate multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased is ‘15’. Therefore, the claimants are entitled for a compensation of Rs.13,44,060/- (7467X12X15) towards ‘loss of dependency’. The claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.70,000/- towards ‘loss of estate’, ‘loss of consortium’ and ‘funeral expenses including the transportation charges of the dead body. An amount of Rs.25,000/- is awarded towards ‘loss of love and affection’ as against Rs.15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. A sum of Rs.1,23,000/- awarded towards ‘medical expenses’ including ‘attendant charges’ is undisturbed. In all, the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.15,62,060/- as against Rs.13,48,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER M.F.A.Nos.6678/2015 and 3160/2015 are allowed in part.
The judgment and award dated 30.01.2005 passed in M.V.C.No.590/2013 on the file of *III Addl. District Judge and IV- MACT, Tumkur is hereby modified.
The claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.15,62,060/- as against Rs.13,48,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The interest applicable to the enhanced compensation of Rs.2,14,060/- will be 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization..
The amount in deposit in M.F.A.No.3160/2015 shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal. Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation and shall deposit the entire amount within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
NR/-
*Corrected vide court order dated 30.01.2020.
Sd/- JUDGE