IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B. V. NAGARATHNA AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR M.F.A.NO.9551 OF 2018 (MV-D) BETWEEN:
1. H.S.VISHALAKSHI HEGDE, W/O H.N.SHRIDHARA HEGDE, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE.
2. H.N.SHRIDARA HEGDE, S/O NAGAPPA HEGDE, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OWNER OF GAJALAXMI BEEDASTAL AND CANTEEN, RAJAJINAGAR, BIRURU.
APPELLANTS ARE RESIDENTS OF C/O K.G.SURESHA KHANDIKA, S/O GANAPAIAH PATEL, VINOBHANAGARA, SAGAR TOWN – 577 401, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI RAJENDRA S, ADVOCATE FOR; SRI S.V.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. ABDUL REHAMAN, S/O RAFIQ AHAMMAD, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, HOUSE NO.648, 2ND CROSS, BHOOTHANAGUDI, BHADRAVATHI TOWN – 577301, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
2. K.G.MANJUNATHA, S/O GANAPAIAH PATEL, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, MARUTHI NIVASA, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, BIRUR – 577116, KADUR TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT.
3. DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, VINAYAKA COMPLEX, 1ST FLOOR, GARDEN AREA, SHIVAMOGGA – 577201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.S.LAKSHMI NARASAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR; SRI B.C.SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R3; R1, R2 - SERVED) **** THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 02.04.2018, PASSED IN MVC NO.750/2014, ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., AND ADDITIONAL MACT-10, SAGAR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ASHOK G.NIJAGANNAVAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsels on both sides, it is heard finally.
2. This appeal is preferred by the claimants/appellants for enhancement of compensation and modification of the judgment and award dated 02.04.2018 passed in M.V.C. No.750/2014 by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC and Addl. M.A.C.T.-10, Sagar.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status before the Tribunal.
4. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that on 03.07.2013 at about 8.45 a.m., the deceased Santhosh S.Hegde, s/o. Shridara Hegde was traveling in a car bearing Registration No.KA-01/MB-3780, which was driven by its driver respondent No.4 in a rash and negligent manner, when the said car was moving on Shivamogga- Bhadravathi NH-206 in front of Kaveri Industries of Ambedkar Extension, Machenahalli Village of Shivamogga District, a lorry bearing Registration No.KA-19/TP-31 MH- 12 TRBUE-818 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the car. On account of the said accident, Santhosh S.Hegde succumbed to grievous injuries on the spot. Due to the untimely death of the deceased in the accident, the family members have become orphans. They have lost the financial support and are put to hardship. The said accident was due to rash and negligent driving of drivers of both lorry and car in question. Thus, the respondent Nos.1 and 4 being the drivers, respondent Nos.2 and 5 being the owners and respondent Nos.3 and 6 being the insurers are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
5. With the aforesaid assertions, the claimants/appellants, who are the dependants and the legal representatives, have filed the petition claiming compensation under several heads.
6. In response to the notice issued by the Tribunal, the respondent Nos.2 to 6 have appeared through their counsels. The objections were filed by respondent Nos.2, 3 and 6 denying the averments made in the claim petition. The remaining respondents have not put up their defence.
7. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:
i. Whether the petitioners prove that on 03.07.2013 at about 8.45 a.m., on Shivamogga-Bhdravathi NH-206 in front of Kaveri Industries of Ambedkar Extention, Machenahalli Village of Shivamogga Taluk, when the deceased by name Santhosh S Hegde S/o H.N.Shridhar Hegde was going in a car bearing Reg.No.KA-01/MB-3780, the respondent No.4 being the driver of the said car drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and at the same time the respondent No.1 being the driver of the lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-19/TP-31 MH-12 TRBUE-818 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and both the vehicles dashed to each other and caused serious injuries to the aforesaid deceased and thereby caused his death?
ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?
iii. What order or award?
8. The appellant No.2 herein has been examined as PW1 and got marked five documents as per Exhibits-P1 to P5. The official of the respondent No.3 – Insurance Company was examined as RW1 and got marked seven documents as per Exhibits-R1 to R7.
9. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the learned MACT came to the conclusion that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the car bearing Registration No.KA- 01/MB-3780. It is further held that the respondent No.3 – the Oriental Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation as detailed below:
i. Rs.7,56,000/- under the head of loss of dependency;
ii. Rs.50,000/- under the head of loss of love and affection;
iii. Rs.15,000/- under the head of funeral expenses; and iv. Rs.5,000/- under the head of transportation of dead body.
10. The total compensation of Rs.8,26,000/- is awarded along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
11. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed in M.V.C. No.750/2014, the claimants/appellants have preferred this appeal contending that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in calculating the loss of dependency and the Tribunal ought to have taken the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- as he was a student studying Bachelor of Computer Application (B.C.A.) Course. The compensation awarded under the head of love and affection is only Rs.7,56,000/- which is on the lower side. The Tribunal has committed error in awarding the funeral expenses at Rs.15,000/-. The Tribunal ought to have awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of estate. The deceased would have acquired higher education as he was a bright student and on account of untimely death, his parents have suffered a loss. The Tribunal was not justified in awarding the interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
12. We have heard learned counsel for the claimants/appellants and the learned counsel for respondent – Insurance Company. Perused the judgment.
13. In the present case, the liability of the Insurance Company is admitted. The only point in controversy is regarding the quantum of compensation to be awarded.
14. It is an admitted fact that, the age of the deceased was 18 years at the time of the accident. As such, 18 multiplier would be applicable. This Court is inclined to take the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- as the deceased was studying Bachelor of Computer Application (B.C.A.) Course and he had a bright future. In view of the principle laid down in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, an additional amount of 40% needs to be added to the notional income of Rs.15,000/- i.e., Rs.15000 X 40% = Rs.6000/-. Thus, the total income would be Rs.21,000/- (Rs.15,000 + 6000). Out of the said amount, 50% of the amount requires to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased as he was a bachelor. Hence, the net income would be Rs.10,500/-. The deceased was aged about 18 years, considering the multiplier to be applied, the compensation payable under the head loss of future prospects would be as under:
Rs.10500 x 12 x 18 = Rs.22,68,000/-
15. The claimants/appellants are none other than the parents of the deceased. As such, they are entitled for a compensation under the head of loss of filial consortium. Hence, a sum of Rs.60,000/- is awarded towards filial consortium. In addition to that, the claimants/appellants are entitled for a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses.
16. Thus, we are of the opinion that a total compensation of Rs.23,58,000/- would be justified along with 6% interest per annum from the date of claim petition till realization.
17. For the foregoing reasons, we pass the following:
ORDER i. The appeal filed by the claimants/appellants is partly allowed. The claimants/appellants are entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.15,32,000/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of claim petition till realization, in addition to the compensation of Rs.8,26,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
ii. Accordingly, the judgment and award dated 02.04.2018 passed in M.V.C. No.750/2014 by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC and Addl. M.A.C.T.-10, Sagar, stands modified.
iii. The respondent No.3 - Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced compensation within four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.
iv. The apportionment and release of enhanced compensation amount shall be as per the award passed by the Tribunal.
The deposit, if any, before this court shall be transmitted to the Trial Court. The parties to bear their respective costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE SJ