IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. SATYANARAYANA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM MFA NO.7625/2015(MV) C/W MFA NO.3462/2016(MV) IN MFA NO.7625/2015 BETWEEN:
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, DO-III, MAHALAKSHMI COMPLEX, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE – 560001. REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE (MOTOR TP HUB), THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBERS, NO.9, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE – 560001.
…APPELLANT (BY SRI.RAJAGOPALAN.R, ADVOCATE (NONE APPEARS)) AND:
1. SMT.R.MAITHRI, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS 2. KUM. P.ARPITHA, AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS 3. SHRI NAGARAJ, SON OF SHRI NARASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS 4. SMT. GOWRAMMA, WIFE OF SHRI. NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 1ST RESPONDENT IS THE WIFE, 2ND RESPONDENT IS THE DAUGHTER AND RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 ARE THE PARENTS, RESPECTIVELY OF LATE SHRI.N.PRABHAKAR 2ND RESPONDENT BEING A MINOR, IS REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN/MOTHER THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALL THE RESPONDENTS ARE RESIDING AT KODIHALLI VILLAGE, KALLALUGHATTA POST, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562201 5. SHRI V.MURUGAN, SON OF SHRI. VAJRAVEL, MAJOR, RCC 206-261, SG MUTT ROAD, CHAMARAJAPET, BANGALORE – 560018.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.P.SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR/R1-R4) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:29.6.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.5571/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE 23RD ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, 21ST ACMM, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.28,81,890/- WITH INTEREST @ 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.
IN MFA NO.3462/2016 BETWEEN:
1. SMT.MAITHRI.R W/O LATE PRABHAKAR.N AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS 2. KUM.ARPITHA.P D/O LATE PRABHAKAR.N AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS 3. SRI.NAGARAJ, S/O NARASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS 4. SMT. GOWRAMMA, W/O NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS (SINCE APPELLANT NO.2 IS MINOR, SHE IS REP. BY HER MOTHER SMT. MAITHRI, THE FIRST APPELLANT HEREIN) ALL ARE R/AT KODIHALLI VILLAGE, KALLALUGHATTA POST, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
…APPELLANTS (BY SRI.SHIVAKUMAR.P, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., DO-III, MAHALAKSHMI COMPLEX, M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU – 560001 REP. BY ITS MANAGER.
2. SRI.MURUGAN.V S/O VAJRAVEL, RCC-206-261, SG MUTT ROAD, CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU – 560018.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.R.RAJAGOPALAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 (NONE APPEARS);
V/O DTD:24.10.2019 NOTICE TO R2 DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:29.06.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.5571/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE 21ST ACMM, 23RD ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award dated 29.6.2015 passed by the XXI Additional C.M.M. and Member, MACT, Bengaluru, in MVC.Nos.5571 and 6690/2013, the claimants in MVC.No.5571/2013 have preferred MFA.No.3462/2016 seeking enhancement of compensation and the Insurance company has preferred MFA.No.7625/2015 questioning the quantum of compensation awarded to the aforesaid claimants.
2. The case of the claimants is that on 14.3.2012 at about 8.30 a.m., the deceased Prabhakar who is the husband of claimant No.1 was riding a motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-52-E-4297 along with one Shivakumar as a pillion rider, cautiously observing all traffic rules and regulations and when they reached near Prince Hotel, Nelamangala, Bangalore-Tumkur NH- 4 road, at that juncture the driver of the lorry owned by respondent No.2 bearing Regn.No.KA-6-B-5959 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor bike, as a result of which both of them fell down and sustained injuries. Both of them were shifted to M.S. Ramaiah Harsha Hospital, Nelamangala. The deceased Prabhakar underwent left craniotomy and right side ICD on 14.9.2013 and trachiostomy on 19.9.2013, however, he succumbed to the injuries on 24.9.2013. The claimants contending that the deceased was aged 35 years and was earning Rs.25,000/- per month from working as skilled operator and milk vendor claimed compensation.
The first respondent Insurance Company on receipt of notice contested the proceedings and stoutly denied the negligence of the driver of the lorry. On the contrary, it was contended that the accident was caused due to riding of the motor bike at a high speed in a rash and manner by its rider. However, the second respondent owner did not contest the claim petition by filing the written statement.
Based on the rival contentions, the Tribunal framed relevant issues.
The claimants in support of their contention examined the widow of deceased Prabhakar as P.W.1 and other two independent witnesses as P.Ws.2 and 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P43. The respondent- insurance company by way of rebuttal evidence examined its official as R.W.1 and produced documentary evidence Exs.R1 to R7 in MVC.No.5571/2013.
The Tribunal on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence in MVC.No.5571/2013 has awarded total compensation of Rs.28,18,890/- with interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit and held respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. Further, directed the first respondent- insurer to deposit the said amount within 60 days from the date of award.
Being aggrieved by the same, the claimants have preferred appeal in MFA.No.3462/2016 seeking enhancement and the Insurance Company has preferred appeal in MFA.No.7625/2015 questioning the quantum of compensation.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the claimants and the learned counsel for the Insurance Company and perused the records.
4. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the Tribunal considering Ex.P11- salary slip has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.10,067/- per month and adding 50% towards future prospects and by applying the appropriate multiplier of 16 has awarded compensation of Rs.21,74,400/- towards loss of dependency, which is just and proper. Further, taking note of the medical bills as per Ex.P25 has rightly awarded a sum of Rs.3,00,770/- towards medical expenses, which is also just and proper. The compensation awarded under the conventional heads is bit on the higher side. However, taking note of the fact that the deceased has left behind his wife, who was hardly aged 26 as on the date of accident, aged parents and a minor daughter, we do not find any justifiable grounds to disturb the same. Thus, total compensation of Rs.28,18,890/-determined by the Tribunal is just and fair and as such the appeal filed by the claimants in MFA.7625/2015 seeking enhancement is devoid of merits and accordingly the same is dismissed.
5. In view of our findings in the appeal filed by the claimants in MFA.No.3462/2015, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company in MFA.No.7625/2015 would not survive for consideration. However, the contention of the counsel appearing for the Insurance Company in MFA.7625/2015 that since the deceased was a contract labour and in absence of actual payment made to the deceased, the Tribunal ought to have taken the income at Rs.6,500/- cannot be accepted in view of our findings recorded in the connected appeal in MFA.3462/2015. Hence, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is also liable to be dismissed.
In the light of the above observations, both the appeals filed by the claimants and the Insurance company respectively in MFA.Nos.3462/2016 and 7625/2015 are dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE *alb/-