IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT M.F.A.No.2291/2014 (MV) BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER M/S. ICICI LOMBARD GIC LTD., NO.62/1, II FLOOR PRESTIGE CRONICHE RICHMOND ROAD BANGALORE-25.
LEGAL MANAGER ICICI LOMBARD GIC LTD., SVR COMPLEX, NO.89 HOSUR MAIN ROAD MADIVALA, BANGALORE-68.
(BY SRI.PRADEEP B, ADV.) AND:
1. SRINIVAS S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA NOW AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS 2. VENKATESH S/O VENKATARAMANAPPA NOW AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS ...APPELLANT BOTH ARE R/AT NO.4 POSHETTIHALLI CHIKKABALAPURA TALUK & DISTRICT-562101.
AND ALSO R/AT NO.40M 2ND MAIN, 2ND CROSS KOGILU, YELAHANKA BANGALORE-62.
3. H L BABU S/O LAKSHMINARAYANASWAMY MAJOR HEGGADAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DIST.-561203.
4. R MANJUNATHA S/O RAMACHANDRA NO.177/1, MANJUNATHA BUILDING ABBIGERE MAIN ROAD KAMMAGONDANAHALLI JALAHALLI MAIN BANGALORE NORTH TALUK-27.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K V SHYAMAPRASAD, ADV. FOR R1 & R2 R3 & R4 – NOTICE D/W V/O DT:07/11/2016) THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.11.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.6057/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, BANGALORE, (SCCH NO.18), AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.3,02,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALISATION.
THIS M.F.A COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T The insurer is in appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 11.11.2013 passed in MVC No.6057/2010 on the file of III Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Bengaluru.
2. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the death of one Smt. Venkatamma – the mother of the claimants, in a Road Traffic Accident. She was aged 65 years as on the date of accident. It is stated that on 27.05.2010 when the claimant was proceeding from pusettihalli to Chikkaballapur in an autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-53-3472, the driver drove the autorickshaw in a high speed, rash and negligent manner, due to which the auto turtled and the passengers fell down and Venkatamma sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital. It is stated that she was earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month by working as a maid servant.
3. On issuance of summons, the 1st respondent – Insurance Company appeared before the Tribunal and filed its objection denying the petition averments. It further stated that the autorickshaw, which involved in the accident was a goods autorickshaw and the seating capacity was 2, as such there is violation of policy conditions. The 2nd respondent appeared and filed his written statement stating that he is not the owner of the offending vehicle and he has sold it to one R. Manjunatha and the autorickshaw was insured with respondent No.1 – the Insurer. Subsequently one R. Manjunatha was impleaded as respondent No.3. The Tribunal on scrutiny of the documents placed before it and the evidence on record awarded total compensation of Rs.3,02,000/- with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization on the following
While awarding the above compensation the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month and deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased. The insurer being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is before this Court in this appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant – Insurer and learned counsel for the respondents - claimants. Perused the entire material on record.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant - Insurer would submit that the Tribunal committed an error in awarding compensation, which is on the higher side. He submits that the Tribunal ought to have taken the deduction at 50%, since the claimants are major sons they cannot be considered as dependents and they would not be entitled for compensation on the head ‘loss of estate’. Thus while awarding compensation towards the head ‘loss of estate’ 50% is to be deducted. Further he submits that the claimants would not be entitled to compensation towards pecuniary loss and on other heads except towards funeral expenses. Thus he prays for reduction of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Further the learned counsel would submit that the claimants would be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% p.a. in view of Section 34 of IPC and not 8% as awarded by the Tribunal and prays for reduction of interest.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper, which requires no interference. He further submits that the claimants, who are the sons of deceased Venkatamma were wholly depending on the income of the deceased and as such the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the head of ‘pecuniary loss’ is just and proper. It is submitted that interest awarded by the Tribunal is also just and proper, which needs no interference. Thus prays for dismissal of the appeal.
7. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, the points that arise for consideration is as to :-
“a. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper ?
b. Whether the Tribunal is justified in awarding 8% interest on the compensation awarded ?
Answer to the above points is in the negative for the following reasons :
The occurrence of the accident on 27.05.2010 involving autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-53-3472 and the accidental death of one Venkatamma are not in dispute in this appeal. The claimant’s state that the deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month by working as maid servant. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased, who was aged 65 years, at Rs.4,500/- per month, which is just and proper and needs no
depending on the income of the deceased. There is no material placed on record to show that the claimants were wholly depending on the income of the mother, as such they would not be entitled to any compensation on the head of ‘loss of dependency’. As they have lost their mother, they would be entitled for compensation on the head ‘loss of estate’. While awarding compensation towards ‘loss of estate’ normally the deduction would be taken at 50% and balance to be treated as her saving. If 50% is deducted out of the assessed income of Rs.4,500/- saving of the deceased would be Rs.2,250/- and the same could be taken as her saving for the purpose of compensation on the head ‘loss of estate’. The deceased was aged 65 years as on the date of accident and the proper multiplier to be adopted would be ‘7’. Thus the claimants would be entitled for the following modified compensation :-
a. Loss of estate Rs.2,250/- x 12 x 7 Rs.1,89,000/-
b. Funeral expenses 25,000/-
Total Rs.2,14,000/-
8. Learned counsel for the appellant - Insurer contended that the claimants would be entitled for interest at 6% as against 8% awarded by the Tribunal. Section 34 of CPC would be applicable, as it is not commercial transaction. In the decision VIJAY ESHWAR JADHAV AND OTHERS V. ULRICH BELCHIOR FERNANDES AND ANOTHER reported in 2018 (3) AKR 690, it is held at paragraphs 14 and 15 as follows :-
14. I have carefully considered the rival contentions of the counsel for the Insurance Company for the claimants. It is true that the provisions of Civil Procedure Code are not Proprio vigor applicable to the procedure and powers of claims Tribunal, except to the extent mentioned in sub-Section (2) of Section 169 of the Act. Sub-sections (1) & (2) of Section 169 read as under:
“169. Procedure and powers of Claims Tribunals-
(1) In holding any inquiry under section 168, the Claims Tribunal may, subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit.
(2) The Claims Tribunal shall have all the powers of a Civil Court for the purpose of taking evidence on oath and of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and of compelling the discovery and production of documents and material objections and for such other purposes as may be prescribed; and the Claims Tribunal shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for all the purposes of section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) 15. However, the provisions of Section 149(1) of the Act to the extent they speak of interest payable on the compensation amount is in the nature of an exception to the general law enacted n 169 of the M.V.Act and therefore, the provisions of Section 34 of the CPC to that extent become invocable on the general principles of construction of statutes namely the special law overrides the general law. Therefore, in the absence of any other law relating to interest on judgments, the MACT has to follow the provisions of Section 34 of CPC, 1908. Thus, in the given circumstances of this case, interest at the rate of more than 6% could not have been awarded.
In view of the above decision, I am of the view, that the claimants would be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the compensation amount.
9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award is modified and the claimants are entitled to reduced compensation in a sum of Rs.2,14,000/- as against Rs.3,02,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6% p.a. as against 8% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.
The amount in deposit be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal.
Sd/- JUDGE NG*CT:bms