IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO BETWEEN GOWRAMMA M.F.A.No.373/2013 (MV) W/O ESHWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS HOUSEHOLD(DECEASED MOTHER) R/O ANAGODU VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE TALUK – 577 312 (BY SRI JAGADEESH GOWDA PATIL FOR ... APPELLANT SRI MALLIKARJUNA G CONTRACTOR, ADVOCATE) AND 1. M RADHAKRISHNAN S/O MADHAVAN KRISHNAN, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, DRIVER OF THE NEETA VOLVO BUS BEARING REG. No.MH-04/G-2930, RESIDING AT GIRIDHAR PATIL CHAL, AR.No.05, TURBOGONNAVI, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA STATE - 400 601 2. M/S. NEETA TOURS AND TRAVELS, FLOT NO.2, SHREE PRASHTHA, NO.108, PLOT NO.2, NALASOPARA (W), DISTRICT: THANE 400 601 OWNER OF THE VOLVO BUS BEARING REG.No.MH-04/G-2930.
3. THE MANAGER H.D.F.C. ERGP GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE SHREE PRASHTHA BUILDING, THANE DISTRICT, MAHARASHTRA … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H S LINGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R3 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O.DT.3.4.18, R2 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:24.9.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.147/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MACT, DAVANAGERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING :-
JUDGMENT Sri.Jagadeesh Gowda, Learned counsel for the appellant, would submit to send the LCRs back to the Tribunal in view of disbursement of compensation amount. However, with the consent of both the learned counsel, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. Appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 24.9.2012 passed In MVC No.147/2011 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, MACT, Davanagere, wherein the claim Petition came to be allowed in part and compensation of Rs.3,66,000/- together with interest at the rate of 6% was ordered. Being not satisfied with the quantum, the mother of the deceased has preferred the appeal.
3. In order to avoid confusion and overlapping, the parties hereinafter are referred to in accordance with the rankings held by them before the Tribunal.
4. The proceedings before the Tribunal came to be initiated because of the road traffic accident said to have occurred on 25.11.2010 at about 08.45 P.M. when one Vasanth @ Vasanthkumar was returning home and was crossing NH 4, near bus stand of Anagodu Village, Davanagere Taluk. At that time, a bus bearing Registration No.MH-04/G-2930, driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the said person who sustained serious injuries and succumbed to them. The petitioner claim that she has incurred medical expenditure of Rs.50,000/-.
5. The respondent No.3- Insurance Company entered appearance and resisted the claim of the petitioner denying the averments made therein.
6. The learned Member of the Tribunal considered the matter regarding negligence, accident, injury and death accommodated with the oral evidence of PW1 (claimant-Gowramma) and documentary evidence – Exhibits P1 to P10 and awarded the compensation as mentioned above.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that compensation awarded is unreasonably on the lower side. Heads of compensation are under- assessed individually and totally. Data on which compensation is assessed is, the age of the deceased was taken as 26, monthly income assessed as Rs.4,500/- and multiplier applied was 13. Thus the break up of compensation is as under :-
Loss of dependency - Rs.3,51,000 Loss of love and affection - Rs. 10,000 Funeral expenses - Rs. 5,000 Insofar as monthly income of the deceased is concerned, it is taken at Rs.4500/- p.m., which comes to Rs.54,000/- per annum and 50% of the same is deducted towards personal and living expenses. Insofar as consideration of monthly income is concerned, I concur with the learned Member. However the deceased was said to be carrying on agriculture work in addition to milk vending. It appears reasonable if he is compensated by taking into consideration the aspect of future prospects. Accordingly, as the deceased was aged only 26 years at the time of death, 40% of the monthly income (Rs.4,500 of 40% = 1800) should be taken as future prospects and hence if the same is added to the monthly income of Rs.4500/-, which comes to Rs.6300/- per month. As the deceased was a bachelor, 50% has to be deducted from the monthly income towards his personal expenses, which comes to Rs.3,150/-. The appropriate multiplier applicable should have been considered on the age of the deceased. Hence, as he was aged 26 years at the time of death, the appropriate multiplier applicable would be ‘17’. Hence, the compensation towards loss of dependency would be as follows : Rs.3,150 x 12 x 17 = Rs.6,42,600/-. Rs.30,000/- is awarded towards conventional heads. Hence, the petitioner/claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.6,72,600/-.
8. Thus, as per the equation calculated above, it is observed that though the learned Member of the Tribunal has rightly dealt with the claim petition, has erred in awarding just compensation and has awarded only Rs.3,66,000/-, which appear to be on the lower side. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner/claimant, mother of the deceased, would be entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.3,06,600/- (Rs.6,72,600/- minus Rs.3,66,000/-) in this appeal which carries interest at the rate of 6% P.A. from the date of petition till realization. To the above extent the impugned Judgment and Award is modified. The respondent/Insurance Company shall deposit the compensation with interest within four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment before the jurisdictional Tribunal.
Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed in part.
Sd/- JUDGE rs