IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR M.F.A. No. 6741/2016 BETWEEN :
M/s. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., Regional Office No. 89, 2nd Floor SVR Complex, Hosur Main Road Madiwala, Bangalore – 560 068 Now rep. by its legal manager M/s. ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd., Regional Office The Estate, 9th Floor Dickenson Road, M.G. Road Bangalore – 42. … APPELLANT (By Sri. B.C. Shivanne Gowda, Adv.) AND :
1. Smt. Nagarathnamma @ Shivarathnamma @ Rathnamma W/o. late Chandru @ Chandranna Now aged about 29 years 2. Nanditha D.C.
D/o. late Chandru @ Chandranna Aged about 9 yeas 3. Jeevitha D.C.
D/o. late Chandru @ Chandranna Aged about 7 yeas 4. Shivamariyamma @ Shivamaramma W/o. late Doddamarigowda Aged about 59 years 2nd and 3rd respondents are Minors, rep. by natural guardian And mother 1st respondent All are R/a. Dimbadahalli Village Kodihalli Hobli Kanakapura Taluk Ramanagara District 562 117.
5. Chetan Major No. 117, 1st Floor 18th Main, Vijayanagara Bangalore – 560 040. … RESPONDENTS (By Sri. M.H. Prakash, Adv., for R-1 & R-4 R-2 & R-3 minor rep. by R-1 Vide order dated 12.01.2017 notice to R-5 dispensed with) ---
This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act against the judgment and award dated 03.06.2016 passed in MVC No. 1930/2015 on the file of Member, Principal MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH-1) and etc.
This MFA coming on for Hearing this day, the Court delivered the following;
J U D G M E N T This appeal is presented by the insurer challenging the common judgment and award dated 03.06.2016 insofar as MVC No. 1930/2015 is concerned, passed by the Principal Motor accidents Claims Tribunal at Bengaluru.
2. Learned Advocate for the insurer – appellant urged a solitary contention that the learned Tribunal has considered the future prospects at 50% based on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Vs. Rajbir Singh, reported in 2013 ACJ 1403. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi, AIR 2017 SC 5157, future prospects ought to have been considered at 40%. In the said judgment, the Supreme Court has observed as under:
“61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:-
(i) The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench.
(ii) As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent.
(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.
(iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.”
3. In his usual fairness learned advocate for the claimant does not dispute the position of law urged by the learned advocate for the insurer.
4. By consent of learned advocates for the parties, future prospects to which the claimants are entitled shall be considered at 40% of the income of the deceased. It is recorded in paragraph No. 40 of the judgment that the deceased was earning Rs.8,000/- per month. Hence, 40% of the income works out to calculation shall be Rs.11,200/- (8000 + 3200). When future prospects are computed by taking the earning capacity of the deceased at Rs.11,200/-, loss of dependency works out to Rs.15,12,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.16,20,000/-. In the result, I pass following order;
i. The appeal is allowed in part.
ii. Claimants shall be entitled for a total compensation of Rs.16,72,000/-.
iii. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified and it is ordered that claimants shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.16,72,000/- as total compensation with interest at the rate of 9% p.a.
iv. The Insurer shall deposit the compensation amount of Rs.16,72,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. excluding the amount already deposited within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Registry is directed to transmit the amount in deposit to the Tribunal for disbursement in accordance with law.
Accordingly, appeal is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE LRS.