IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE. S. R. KRISHNA KUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1085/2018 BETWEEN:
1. SMT JYOTHISHWARI W/O LATE VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, 2. KUMARI V KEERTHI, D/O LATE VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS, 3. MASTER V ROHAN, S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 2 YEARS, 4. KAVERIYAMMA, W/O LATE MUNISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, APPELLANTS NOs.1 TO 3 ARE RESIDING AT: NO.105, BANNERUGHATTA MAIN ROAD, MALENELLASANDRA, JIGANI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE.
APPELLANT NO.4 IS RESIDING AT; NO.2-23, A1, NALLUR, HOSUR TALUK, KRISHNAGIRI, TAMIL NADU – 635 125.
SINCE THE 2ND AND 3RD APPELLANTS ARE MINORS REPTD. BY THEIR MOTHER 1ST APPELLANT AS NATURAL GUARDIAN.
... APPELLANTS (BY SRI JAGADISH .G. KUMBAR ADVOCATE FOR SREENIVASAIAH .A. ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT) AND:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR B.M.T.C SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 027. .. RESPONDENT (BY SRI D. VIJAY KUMAR ADV.,) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.08.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.5677/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE 16TH ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MACT, BENGALURU, 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 matter is listed for admission, with the consent of both the counsel, this matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. This appeal is preferred by the claimants being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award passed by the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore city (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’ in MVC No.5677/2016 awarding compensation of Rs.14,77,000/- in favour of the appellants along with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.
3, Both the counsel submit that the occurrence of the accident and liability / coverage are not in dispute and the appeal is restricted to quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal .
4. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding only a sum of Rs.11,52,000/- in favour of the appellants under the head ‘Loss of dependency’. He invited my attention to the Lokadalath guidelines which stipulate that in the absence of proof of income, notional income of the deceased in respect of the accident that occurred in the year 2016, ought to have taken as Rs.9500/- pm instead of Rs.8000/- as wrongly taken by the tribunal. It was contended that in view of the law laid down in the case of National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, the Tribunal has committed an error in not adding 40% of the notional income of Rs.9500/- for the purpose of assessing the loss of dependency. Therefore, it is contended that the amount of Rs.11,52,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head ‘loss of dependency’ is highly inadequate and meager and the same requires enhancement. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the awarding of compensation under other heads, is very meager and insufficient and the same also requires enhancement by this Court.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent- Corporation supported the impugned judgment and award. In particular, it was contended by the learned counsel for respondent that the compensation awarded in favour of the appellant under the conventional heads is excessive and the same requires reduction by this Court keeping in mind the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in respect of the compensation payable under the conventional heads.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions of both the counsel and perused the material in record.
7. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellants, the Tribunal committed an error in taking the notional income of Rs.8000/- pm instead of Rs.9500/- pm as per the guidelines of the Lokadalath. The tribunal also committed an error in not adding 40% of the income to the notional income as held on Pranay sethi’s case as aforesaid, Accordingly, as per the guidelines of Lokadalath and the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case, the notional income of the deceased for the purpose of assessing the loss of dependency comes to Rs.13,300/-. In view of the undisputed fact that the deceased had four legal heirs, and thereby deducting ¼th of that amount towards personal expenses, the total income for the purpose assessing the loss of dependency comes to 9975/-. Accordingly, the appellants are entitled for a sum of Rs.19,15,200/- (9975x12x16) towards loss of dependency. Hence the loss of dependency is enhanced from Rs.11,52,000/- to Rs.19,15,200/-.
8. The learned counsel for the respondent – Corporation is right in contending that the compensation awarded under the conventional heads ie., Loss of consortium, Loss of love and affection and loss of estate at Rs.75,000/-, 1,25,000/- and 1,00,000/- are excessive in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY VS. NANU RAM in CA No.9581/2018. Hence keeping in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court , the compensation payable to the appellants under various heads are reworked as follows:
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 19,15,200/-
2. Towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses Rs. 25,000/-
3. Loss of spousal consortium Rs. 40,000/-
Thus the appellants are entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs. 6,08,200 along with interest at 6% p.a from the date of claim petition till the date of realization. Hence I pass the following Order.
Order The appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award passed by the tribunal is modified awarding enhanced compensation of Rs. 6,08,200/- in favour of the appellants together with interest at 6% p.a from the date of claim petition till the date of realization. There is no order as to costs.
Sd/- JUDGE NM