IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR M.F.A.No.966 OF 2018 (MV) BETWEEN:
GENERAL MANAGER BRANCH OFFICE ICICI LOMBARD GIC LTD., B.H.ROAD, NEAR SHIVAKUMARASWAMIJI CIRCLE TUMAKURU.
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER ICICI LOMBARD GIC LTD., # 121, THE ESTATE BUILDING 9TH FLOOR, DICKSON ROAD BENGALURU – 560 042.
(BY SRI. PRADEEP.B, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SHANTHAMMA W/O LATE SHANKARAIAH @ SHANKARAIAH HIREMUTT NOW AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS.
2. CHANDANA D/O LATE SHANKARAIAH @ SHANKARAIAH HIREMATT NOW AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS.
3. CHAITRA D/O LATE SHANKARAIAH NOW AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS.
…APPELLANT 4. SANIKA D/O LATE SHANKARAIAH @ SHANKARAIAH HIREMUTT NOW AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS RESPONDENT NO. 2 TO 4 ARE MINOR REPRESENTED BY THEIR N/G AND MOTHER AS 1ST RESPONDENT.
5. SANGAIAH GURUPADHAIAH HIREMUTT S/O LATE GURUPADAIAH HIREMUTT NOW AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS.
6. RATHANABAI W/O SANGAIAH GURUPADHAIAH HIREMUTT NOW AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT BANAHATTI SINDAGI TALUK VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT – 560 066.
7. SRINATHAIAH HIREMUTT S/O SANGAIAH GURUPADHAIAH HIREMUTT AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT 310/105, VINAYAKA NAGARA THIRUPALYA ROAD ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU – 562 106.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PATEL.D.KAREGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-6 R-2 TO R-4 MINIORS REPRESENTED BY R-1, R-7 Sd) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 17.11.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.192/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, MACT, SIRA, AWARIDING COMPENSATION OF RS.15,20,400/- WITH INTEREST AT 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS DEPOSIT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellant-Insurance company challenging the impugned judgment and award dated 17.11.2017 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Addl.MACT (for short ‘ the Tribunal’), Sira, allowing the claim petition filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 6 thereby, awarding compensation in a total sum of Rs.15,20,400/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.
2. The learned counsel for the respondents-claimants submit that they have not preferred any appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
3. The undisputed facts of the case are that the claimants are the dependents of the deceased Shankaraiah, who died in a road traffic accident that occurred on 02.04.2015 at about 9 a.m.
4. Both the counsels submit that the occurrence of the accident as well as the coverage are not in dispute and that the present appeal is restricted only to the quantum of compensation awarded in favour of the respondents-claimants by the Tribunal. The Tribunal awarded the aforesaid compensation in favour of the respondents-claimants under the following heads:-
1 Loss of dependency Rs.13,10,400/-
2 Love & filial affection Rs. 1,50,000/-
3 Funeral Expenses & Transportation Rs.10,000/-
4 Consortium Rs.50,000/-
Total Rs.15,20,400/-
5. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is contrary to law as well as the material on record. It is also contended that awarding of 30% as future prospects while calculating loss of dependency was on the higher side in view of the fact that the deceased did not have a suitable job. It is further contended that the compensation awarded under the conventional heads is also very high and the same deserves to be scaled down. Lastly, it is contended that the interest at 9% p.a. awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant and that the same is liable to be reduced to 6% p.a.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents-claimants supports the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
7. I have given careful consideration to the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant as well as the respondents and perused the material on record.
8. At paragraphs 11 and 12 of the impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the material on record would clearly indicate that the deceased was aged about 43 years as on the date of the accident and that the appropriate multiplier as per Sarla Verma (Smt) & Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another (2009) 6 SCC 121 would be 14. The Tribunal also came to the conclusion that the notional income of the deceased would have to be taken as Rs.8,000/- per month and in view of the fact that the claimants were the dependants of the deceased, 1/4th of his income needs to be deducted towards personal and living expenses as per the law laid down in the Sarla Verma’s case referred to supra. Accordingly, the notional income was taken at Rs.8,000/- per month. Further, having regard to the age of the deceased, 30% was added to the income of the deceased towards ‘future prospects’ in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of National Insruance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others (2017) 16 SCC 680. Accordingly, the annual income of the deceased was calculated at Rs.93,600/- and applying multiplier of 14, the compensation under the head ‘loss of dependency’ was arrived at Rs.13,10,400/-.
9. In my opinion, having regard to the material on record and the law laid down by the Apex Court referred to above, the Tribunal was fully justified in awarding compensation of Rs.13,10,400/- under the head ‘loss dependency’ and the same does not warrant interference at the hands of this Court.
10. Insofar as the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- awarded in favour of the claimants under the head ‘loss of love and filial affection’ is concerned, in view of the fact that there were six dependants including the aged parents, widow and children of the deceased, the aforesaid amount awarded under this head in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram & Others (2018) 18 SCC 130 is also just and proper and no exception can be taken to the impugned judgment and award insofar as this amount is concerned.
11. The amount of Rs.10,000/- awarded towards ‘funeral expenses and transportation’ is also just, fair and proper and even this finding does not warrant interference at the hands of this Court.
12. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards ‘loss of consortium’. Since the claimant No.1 had lost her husband, even this amount cannot be said to be on the higher side in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra).
13. Insofar as the award of interest at the rate of 9% p.a. is concerned, the Tribunal placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Syed Sadiq & Others vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co., Ltd., 2014 ACJ 627 (SC) and came to the conclusion that the claimants were entitled to interest at 9% p.a. from the date of filing the petition till realization.
14. The discretion so exercised by the Tribunal in awarding interest at the rate of 9% p.a. also does not warrant interference in the present appeal. In this context, it is relevant to state that having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case involved in the present case, in particular that the deceased was the sole bread earner leaving behind his aged parents, wife and three minor children, the rate of interest at 9% p.a. also does not require interference by this Court.
15. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the amount awarded under conventional heads are on the higher side and there are several discrepancies, mistakes and errors committed by the Tribunal while awarding compensation which are contrary to the well settled principles for grant of compensation in Motor Vehicles cases. However, having regard to the over all facts and circumstances of the case, coupled with the aforesaid undisputed circumstances that the deceased was the sole bread earner and the claimants being his aged parents, wife and three minor children, who are fully dependent upon him and his income, no fault can be found with the impugned judgment and award in awarding the aforesaid total compensation as held in the impugned judgment and award.
16. Accordingly, there is no merit in the above appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. The amount in deposit be transmitted to the Tribunal. The apportionment and investment to be done in accordance with the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
Srl.
Sd/- JUDGE