IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.630 OF 2018 (MV D) BETWEEN:
1. K.G.GAYATHRI, W/O LATE GANESH K.T, 57 YEARS.
2. K.G.DIMPU, S/O LATE GANESH K.T, 34 YEARS.
3. K.S.REKHA, D/O LATE GANESH K.T, 31 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT MATHUR VILLAGE, PONNAMPET, KODAGU DISTRICT. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI.DEEPAK POOVAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. JAYA, FATHER’S NAME NOT KNOWN, DRIVER OF IGGUTHAPPA BUS NO.KA-12-A-9090, KODAGU – 571218, KARNATAKA.
2. AIYANNA M K, S/O KALAPPA A, THAILA VILLAGE, KUTTA POST, VIRAJPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT-571217 (OWNER OF VEHICLE NO.KA-12-A-909).
3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, MANNA BUILDING, VIRAJPET TALUK, KODAGU – 571218.
(INSURER OF VEHICLE NO.KA-12-A-909).
...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI T.A.KARUMBAIAH, ADVOCATE, SRI P.B.RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R3, R1 AND R2 SERVED) **** THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.06.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.98/2013 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VIRAJPET, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This appeal by the claimants calls in question the judgment and award dated 09.06.2017 rendered by MACT, Virajpet, allowing the claim petition in M.V.C. No.98/2013, whereby a compensation of Rs.6,68,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum has been awarded subject to the usual condition as to bank deposit of half sum for a period of five years.
BRIEF FACTS:
02. In a vehicular accident that happened on 19.10.2013 at around 3.30 p.m., at Ponnampet junction, because of rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing Registration No.KA-12-A-909, one Mr. K.T.Ganesh having sustained fatal injuries, succumbed thereto; the claim made by his widow and children in M.V.C. No.98/2013 was opposed by the respondents by filing the Written Statement.
03. To prove the claim, the 1st claimant being the widow of the deceased namely K.G.Gayathri got examined herself as PW1; one K.K.Nanjappa who was an eye witness was examined as PW2; another Mr. Sara Changappa who allegedly had employed the deceased was examined as PW3. From the side of the claimants, as many as 18 documents were got marked as per Exhibits-P1 to P18, which inter alia comprise of police papers, Post-mortem Report, RTO documents and a salary certificate, apart from the insurance policy.
04. From the side of the respondents, none was examined, although the driving licence, insurance policy and R.C. Book were marked as Exhibits-R1 to R5 from the side of the respondents.
05. The MACT having adverted to the pleadings of the parties and having considered oral and documentary evidence placed on the board, has rendered the impugned judgment and award that are put in challenge by the claimants on the ground that the compensation awarded is on a meager side.
06. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that for the accident year 2013, the Notional Lok Adalath Chart mentions Rs.8,000/- as the monthly income and going by that standard, the monthly income taken by the MACT in a smaller sum of Rs.6,000/- is unacceptable; in support of his contention, he banks upon the Salary Certificate of deceased which was marked as Exhibit-P17, which mentions Rs.10,500/- per month. So arguing, he seeks for allowing of this appeal.
07. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and having perused the appeal papers, this Court does not find any justification for the interference in the impugned judgment and award, because:
a. the Salary Certificate which is marked as Exhibit-P17 is for only one single month; nothing is forthcoming from the evidentiary material as to whether this salary was paid by cash or by bank cheques; whether any statutory deductions were made; though the alleged employer Sri. Sara Changappa, PW3 has mentioned about the salary certificate, even he has not stated about all its material particulars; even the appointment order has not been produced nor any explanation is offered for not producing the same;
b. the MACT after considering all aspects of the matter including the subject salary certificate, has fixed Rs.6,000/- per month as the notional income of the deceased; the contention that even the notional income chart of the Lok Adalath mentions Rs.8,000/-, is not going to alter the things in as much as the said Chart is not to be taken as the gospel truth in all cases, regardless of the varying circumstances, such as the nature of employment, the place from which the deceased hailed, his qualification, etc. 10 to 15% margin is always admissible when we take the notional income chart for consideration; and c. the MACT having considered the materials on record in its accumulated wisdom, has made the impugned judgment and award which cannot be readily interfered with at askance; this apart, ordinarily, the rate of interest awardable on the compensation is the rate of interest that is admissible under Section 34 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as held by this Court in a catena of decisions, in the absence of special circumstances that warrant a deviation therefrom; the MACT has awarded 9% interest which is 3% more than what usually is awarded.
08. In the above circumstances, this time-barred appeal having been considered on merits, stands rejected in limine.
09. I.A. No.1/2018 is also disposed off, as the main matter itself is rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE SJ