in THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. L. NARAYANA SWAMY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8559 OF 2015 (MV) c/w MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7073 OF 2015 MFA NO.8559 of 2015 Between 1. Gowri S. Shetty Aged about 56 years W/o Late Shekhar Krishnayya Shetty @ H. Shekhar Shetty 2. Saritha Shekhar Shetty Aged about 29 years D/o late Shekhar Krishnayya Shetty @ H. Shekhar Shetty 3. Sahana S. Shetty Aged about 28 years D/o Late Shekhar Krishnayya Shetty @ H. Shekhar Shetty All are R/at “Sayi Shikara” Gowri Nialaya Chantaru Village Brahmavara Post Udupi Taluk and District (by Shri H.Pavana Chandra Shetty, Advocate) And:
1. Praveen Ballal Aged about 36 years S/o H. Subod Ballal R/o Anantha Padmanabha Motors Hebri Post, Karkala Taluk Udupi District, Pin 574 104 2. Reliance Gen. Insurance Co. Ltd. Balmata Road Opp: Kasturba Dental College Mangalore 575 001 …Appellants …Respondents (by Shri H.N. Keshava Prashanth, Advocate for R2; Notice to R1 dispensed with vide order dated 20.11.2015) This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and award dated 29.07.2015 passed in MVC No.29 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Udupi, Additional MACT, Udupi, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
MFA NO.7073 OF 2015 Between:
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Balmatta Road Opp. Kasturba Dental College Mangalore Now represented by its Manager M/s. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Regional Office No.28, 5th Floor, East Wing Centenary Building, M.G. Road Bangalore – 560 001 (by Shri H.N. Keshava Prashanth, Advocate) And:
1. Gowri S. Shetty Aged about 56 years W/o Late Shekhar Krishnayya Shetty @ H. Shekhar Shetty 2. Saritha Shekhar Shetty Aged about 29 years D/o late Shekhar Krishnayya Shetty @ H. Shekhar Shetty 3. Sahana S. Shetty Aged about 28 years D/o Late Shekhar Krishnayya Shetty @ H. Shekhar Shetty All are R/at “Sayi Shikara” Gowri Nialaya Chantaru Village Brahmavara Post Udupi Taluk and District 4. Praveen Ballal Aged about 55 years S/o H. Subod Ballal R/o Anantha Padmanabha Motors Hebri Post, Karkala Taluk Udupi District …Appellant …Respondents (by Shri H. Pavana Chandra Shetty, Advocate for R1 to R3; R4 served) This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and award dated 29.07.2015 passed in MVC No.29 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Udupi, Additional MACT, Udupi, awarding a compensation of Rs.13,15,500/- with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of actual deposit.
These appeals coming on for hearing this day, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE, delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T For the death of the breadwinner in the Road Traffic Accident on 15th August, 2013, the dependants who are wife and daughters of the deceased, made claim petition before the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Principal Senior Civil Judge, Udupi seeking compensation. The Tribunal, by its judgment and award dated 29th July 2015 passed in MVC No.29 of 2014 awarded compensation of Rs.13,15,500/- with interest and 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
2. These appeals are preferred by the Appellants and the Insurer. MFA No.8559 of 2015 is by the appellants seeking enhancement in compensation; and MFA No.7073 of 2015 is preferred by the Insurer and the ground take is on quantum.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurer submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. He submits that in the absence of any documentary evidence produced, the Tribunal has erred in taking the income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/- per month. He also submits that the Tribunal has committed an error in not deducting the income tax and professional tax from the assessed income. Hence, he prays for allowing the appeal and to scale down the compensation.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurer.
We have perused the judgment of the Tribunal. The claimants have stated in the claim petition that the deceased was working under M/s. Heatex Engineering Services at Mumbai and was earning Rs.50,000/- per month. In the year 1998 the deceased had shifted his business to Udupi and he has been working from his house at Brahmavar. The claimants have produced Exhibit P11 which is the work order and ten number of purchase orders, delivery challan, bank statement as per Exhibits P10 to P17. PW1 in her cross examination has stated that the documents she had produced pertain to the year 2003-2006. Exhibit P17 is the passbook extract shows as regards to deposit of Rs.40,000/- made in the months of May and June, 2013. Considering those things, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/- per month and after giving one third deduction, has awarded compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- under the head loss of dependency. The same cannot be said to be exorbitant. The amount awarded under the head loss of love and affection, consortium and towards funeral expenses as also the amount awarded under the head medical expenses is also just and proper and the same cannot be found fault with. Hence, the submission of the learned counsel for the appeal is liable to be rejected, accordingly rejected.
5. In the appeal filed by the claimants, the submission of the learned counsel is that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. The compensation awarded towards funeral expenses at Rs.15,000/- is very meagre. He submits that the deceased was the only source of income of the family and the unfortunate accident that has befallen has made the family to suffer both mentally and financially. The appellants have no other independent source of income and hence, he prays to allow the appeal by suitably enhancing the compensation.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The accident is not in dispute and the deceased succumbing to the accidental injuries is also not in dispute. The claim of the petitioners in the claim petition is that the deceased was earning Rs.50,000/- month working under the Firm M/s. Heatex Engineering Services based at Mumbai and he had shifted his business to Udupi in the year 1998 and was operating his business from his hometown Brahmavara. Though the claimants have produced work order and delivery challan, the same pertain to the year 2003-2006. The exhibits P11 to P13 produced with respect to income proof pertain to year 1998 to 2001. The accident has occurred in the month of August 2013. Though no documentary evidence is produced for the year 2013, but based on the entries in the bank passbook Exhibit P17 which showed the deposit of Rs.40,000/- in the months of May and June, 2013, the Tribunal has taken average monthly income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/- per month. The same cannot be said to be on the lower side. The Tribunal has also awarded compensation Rs.25,000/- each towards loss of love and affection and Rs.20,000/- towards consortium. The amount of Rs.15,000/- awarded towards funeral expenses is also proper. In that view of the matter, the compensation awarded is jut and sound and there is no ground for enhancement. In that view of the matter, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-claimants does not call for interference.
In the result, both the appeals are liable to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE lnn Sd/- JUDGE