IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2017 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.MANOHAR MFA.NO. 6119/2011 (MV) BETWEEN:
1. SMT.JALAJA, W/O LATE DEJAPPA POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 53 EYARS, R/AT JEPPU BAPPAL, NANDIGUDDA I CROSS ROAD, NEAR MR LANE, KANKANADY POST, MANGALORE TLAUK, D.K, PIN 575 004.
2. SMT.SHARMILA, D/O LATE DEJAPPA POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT JEPPU BAPPAL, NANDIGUDDA I CROSS ROAD, NEAR MR LANE KANKANADY POST, MANGALORE TALUK, D.K., PIN 575 004.
3. MR.SUDHEER, S/O LATE DEJAPPA POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT JEPPU BAPPAL, NANDIGUDDA I CROSS ROAD, NEAR MR LANE KANKANADY POST, MANGALORE TALUK, D.K., PIN 575 004.
4. MR.SRIKANTH, S/O LATE DEJAPPA POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT JEPPU BAPPAL, NANDIGUDDA I CROSS ROAD, NEAR MR LANE KANKANADY POST, MANGALORE TALUK, D.K., PIN 575 004. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI.G.RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY, ADV.) AND:
1. MR.JOSEPH D’ ALMEIDA, S/O JOHN ALMEIDA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O 2-87, ALMEIDA VILLA, KULAI POST, MANGALORE, D.K., PIN 575 026.
2. SRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., OFFICE AT E 8, RICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SITAPURA JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
PIN 302 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.A.N.KRISHNA SWAMY, ADV FOR R2, R.1 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH V/O. DTD: 12.03.2014) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 02.02.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.186/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MEMBER MACT-II, D.K., MANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -
J U D G M E N T Appellants are the claimants, being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in MVC No.186/2010 dated 02-02-2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mangalore (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short) filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. Appellants are the mother, brothers and sister of the deceased Sharawan Kumar. While the deceased along with his friend was proceeding in a motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-04/X-7156 towards Mangalore Club Road near P.L.Gate on Morgangate side, a lorry bearing Registration No.KA-19/B-6689 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased. Due to the cximpact, the deceased Sharawan Kumar was thrown out on the road from the motorcycle and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to KMC hospital at Mangalore, however, he succumbed to injuries on the way to hospital. At the time of death, the deceased was aged about 21 years, working as a Hardware and Networking Service Engineer in Horizon Computer Associates, Mangalore and earning income of Rs.7,000/- p.m. In view of death of the deceased, the family has lost the bread earner and hence sought for compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.
3. The insurance company defended the case by filing the written statement.
4. After trial, the Tribunal held that due to actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the offending lorry, the accident occurred and the deceased died on the spot, the claimants are none other than the mother, brothers and sister of the deceased. Hence, the claimants are entitled for compensation. With regard to quantum of compensation is concerned, the employer of Horizon Computer Associates was examined as P.W.3, wherein he has clearly admitted in his evidence that he was paying salary of Rs.7,000/- p.m., to the deceased. The Tribunal taking the income of the deceased as Rs.7,000/- p.m., deducting 50% towards persons expenditure since he was bachelor as on the date of death, further applying the multiplier 11 taking into consideration the age of the mother awarded compensation of Rs.4,62,000/- towards loss of dependency and a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards conventional heads. In all, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.5,02,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants have preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
5. Sri.Ravishankar Shastry, learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the Tribunal is not justified in applying the multiplier of 11 taking into consideration the age of the mother while awarding compensation which is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of AMRIT BHANU SHALI AND OTHERS v/s NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS reported in (2012) 11 SCC 738 and also in another judgment in the case of MUNNA LAL JAIN AND ANOTHER v/s VIPIN KUMAR SHARMA AND OTHERS reported in (2015) 6 SCC 347. Further, the deceased was working as a Service Engineer in Horizon Computer Associates. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in RAJESH AND OTHERS v/s RAJBIR SINGH AND OTHERS reported in 2013 (9)SCC 54, the Tribunal ought to have awarded 50% towards future prospects. Hence, sought for enhancement of compensation by modifying the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
6. On the other hand, Sri.A.N.Krishna Swamy, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent-insurance company argued in support of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and contended that no material has been produced before the Tribunal to show that the deceased was a permanent employee of the Horizon Computer Associates and earning Rs.7,000/- p.m. Though the employer of the deceased was examined, he has not stated anything whether he is a permanent employee or not. Unless the deceased was having stable income and stable job, the question of awarding future prospects does not arise. Further, at the time of death of the deceased, the mother of deceased was aged about 52 years, the Tribunal taking into consideration the age of the mother of the deceased had applied the multiplier of 11 and awarded just and fair compensation which does not warrant interference by this Court. Hence, sought for dismissal of the appeal.
7. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Perused the judgment and award, oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties.
8. The only dispute that arises for consideration in this appeal is with regard to quantum of compensation.
9. The occurrence of the accident and death of the deceased is not in dispute. The main contention of the appellants is with regard to application of appropriate multiplier. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in AMRIT BHANU SHALI case and MUNNA LAL JAIN case (Supra), has laid down a law that while applying the multiplier, age of the deceased has to be taken into consideration as per the table mentioned in SARLA VERMA case. In the instant case, taking the age of mother of the deceased, the Tribunal had applied the multiplier of 11 which is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hence, it would meet the ends of justice if the multiplier 18 is adopted considering the age of the deceased. With regard to future prospects is concerned, no document has been produced to prove that the deceased was a permanent employee of Horizon Computer Associates and getting income of Rs.7,000/- p.m. Future prospects is added only in case of a person having stable job and stable income, however the claimants have not produced any documents in this regard. Hence, taking the income of the deceased as Rs.7,000/- p.m., applying the multiplier 18, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.7,56,000/- towards loss of dependency as against Rs.4,62,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Further the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.45,000/- towards conventional heads. In all, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.8,01,000/- as against Rs.5,02,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER The appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 02-02-2011 in MVC No.186/2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mangalore is modified. The claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.8,01,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. as against Rs.5,02,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
mpk/-* Sd/- JUDGE