IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. SOMASHEKAR M.F.A. No.4488/2015 (MV) BETWEEN:
1. SMT. HONNAMMA W/O. LATE KRISHNAPPA, HINDU NOW AGED 40 YEARS, 2. MANJULA D/O. LATE KRISHNAPPA, HINDU NOW AGED 20 YEARS, 3. SHARADHA D/O. LATE KRISHNAPPA, HINDU NOW AGED 18 YEARS, ALL THE APPELLANTS ARE R/OF PANDITHANAHALLI, URDIGERE HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT PIN CODE NO.– 572 104. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI T.C. SATHISHKUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SHANKAR .V S/O. VENKATAPPA, HINDU, MAJOR, R/OF NO.U 136, III MAIN ROAD, SWATHANTHRA NAGAR, SRIRAM PURA BANGALORE – 560 021.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., MANGALYAPUNARBHAN NO.132, BRIGADE ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 025.
3. LENKAPPA S/O. LATE NARASAIAH, HINDU NOW AGED 74 YEARS, 4. VENKATAMMA W/O. LENKAPPA, HINDU NOW AGED 60 YEARS, RESPONDENTS 3 & 4 ARE R/OF PANDITHANAHALLI, URDIGERE HOBLI, TUMKUR TQ., TUMKUR DISTRICT PIN CODE NO.– 572 104. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M. ARUN PONAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; NOTICE TO R-1, R-3 & R-4 ARE DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:09.03.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.532/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, ADDITIONAL MACT-5, TUMKUR, 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 Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for both sides, this appeal is taken up for final disposal.
2. The facts in brief in this case is that on 5.5.2011 at 3.45 p.m., Krishnappa, son of the petitioners and husband of respondent no.3 and father of respondents 4 and 5 were proceedings on the extreme left side of the N.H.4 road by walk and when they reached in front of State Bank of Mysore, Hirehalli Industrial Area Branch, Tumkur Taluk, a Tata Car bearing No.KA-02-AB-1442 was driven by its driver at high speed in a rash and negligent manner without following traffic rules in endangering manner to human life and property and by violating the rules, was overtaking and came from Bangalore side and dashed against Krishnappa causing accidental injuries. As a result of that, he sustained fatal injuries to the vital parts of the right leg and vital parts of the body. Due to injuries sustained, he succumbed to the injuries on the spot itself. Subsequently the dead body of the injured was shifted to Government hospital, Tumkur for post mortem examination.
3. Subsequently, the L.Rs of the deceased have filed the claim petition seeking compensation by urging various contentions. The same is reflected in the petition itself.
4. On receipt of the summons, the respondents have put their appearance and filed written statement. The first respondent in his written statement has denied the averments made in the claim petition and contended that his vehicle was insured with the second respondent as on the date of the accident and if any compensation is to be paid, the same would be paid by second respondent only. All these grounds have been urged in the written statement filed by the first respondent resisting the petition filed by the claimants seeking compensation. It is however stated that though the car was driven cautiously, the accident has caused due to negligence on the part of the deceased.
5. The second respondent who has filed written statement, resisted the claim petition made by the L.Rs of the deceased wherein it has taken contention that the driver was not having valid and effective DL to drive the vehicle on the date of the accident. On this ground sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
6. In order to establish the case of the petitioners, the petitioners have examined three witnesses and got marked documents as per Exs P1 to Ex P13. On the part of the respondents, they did not adduce any evidence on their side.
7. On evaluating the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and both oral and documentary evidence as per Ex.P5- spot mahazar, Ex.P6 – IMV report, Ex.P7 PM report, Ex.P8 inquest report which have been produced to establish the case of the petitioners for seeking compensation, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.5,63,500/- with interest at 6% p.a.
8. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal erroneously given findings to arrive at conclusion to grant compensation under different heads in this case. The tribunal has failed to consider that the deceased Krishnappa was a agricultural coolie and he has been earning Rs.10,000/- p.m. Without considering the same, the Tribunal has taken income of the deceased at Rs.4500/- p.m. which is on the lower side. He also submits that the future prospects has not been considered by the Tribunal. The income of the deceased is required to be enhanced. The Tribunal has erroneously adopted wrong multiplier and income of the deceased ought to have been taken at Rs.10,000/- p.m. Even without considering the prospective earnings of the deceased, the Tribunal has awarded lesser compensation. Hence this appeal is requires to be allowed by enhancing the compensation.
9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents who has taken through the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and so also the documents produced by the petitioners, submitted that the Tribunal on reevaluating the entire evidence on record, relating to the loss of dependency so also towards love and affections extended by the deceased to the petitioners 1,2 4 and 5, has awarded a proper compensation of Rs.5,63,500/- with 6% interest. With these grounds sought for dismissal of the appeal.
10. In the context of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, it is relevant to state that the accident was occurred on 5.5.2011 at 3.45 p.m. when the deceased Krishnappa was proceeding on the extreme left side of the NH4 road by walk and when he reached in front of State Bank of Mysore, Hirehalli Industrial Area Branch, Tumkur. The same has been reflected in the evidence of PW1 . But the Tata Indica Car which was driven by the driver at high speed in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against deceased –Krishnappa, as a result, he sustained fatal injuries and he succumbed to the injuries on the spot itself. The same has been proved by Ex.P7 – PM report. ExP 5 is the spot mahazar and Ex.P6 is IMV report stated to be conducted by the Police officer wherein he laid charge sheet against the accused. Ex.P8 is the inquest proceedings. These are the important materials placed by the claimants- petitioners to secure compensation before the Tribunal. But the Tribunal has taken Rs.4500/- p.m as income of the deceased. As the accident was occurred in the year 2011, the income of the deceased is liable to be enhanced to Rs.6500/-. 1/4th is to be deducted towards personal expenses. Therefore, the loss of dependency would comes to Rs.7,60,500/- ( 1/4th of Rs.6500 is Rs.1625, Rs.6500-1625= Rs.4875 (income) x 12 (months) x 13 (multiplier) as against Rs.5,26,500/- awarded by the Tribunal. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.2000/- towards transportation of dead body, Rs.25,000/- towards loss of consortium to petitioner No.3 and loss of love and affection to petitioners 1, 2 4 and 5 which are liable to be enhanced. Therefore, keeping in view of the ratio laid down in the case of Pranay sethi Vs. National Insurance Company, reported in National Insurance Company Limited –vs- Pranay Sethi (AIR 2017 Supreme Court 5157), a sum of Rs.70,000/- is granted towards conventional heads instead of Rs.37,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, the appellant- claimants in all entitled for total compensation of Rs.8,30,500/- as against Rs. 5,63,500/- awarded by the Tribunal together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment. Hence the following ORDER The appeal is allowed in part. The appellants/claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.2,67,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.
Office to draw the award, accordingly.
SD/- JUDGE nm