IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT M.F.A.No.5809/2013 [MV] BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION CENTRAL OFFICE CHIKKAMANGALORE-577 101 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
(BY SRI.D VIJAYAKUMAR, ADV.) AND:
1. SMT. ERAMMA W/O KEMPAIAH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 2. SRI KEMPAIAH S/O CHANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 3. KUM. SAVITHA D/O KEMPAIAH AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS ALL ARE R/O YADURU VILLAGE KASABA HOBALI ALUR TALUK HASSAN DIST.-573 211.
... APPELLANT ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.NARENDRA GOWDA, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3) THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.04.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.1992/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-2, ADDITIONAL MACT, HASSAN, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.6,48,200/-WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A WITHIN 2 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF ORDER.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T The appellant/Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’) is in appeal aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 01.04.2013 passed in MVC No.1992/2012 on the file of the Fast Track Court II and Additional MACT, Hassan.
2. The claimants filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the death of one Venkatesh. Claimants are parents and sister of deceased Venkatesh. It is stated that on 09.05.2012 when the deceased was proceeding in his Motor Bike bearing Reg.No.KA-02/HA-494, a bus bearing Reg.No.KA-18-F-
334 came in a rash, negligent manner and dashed to the motor bike, due to which he suffered grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. It is stated that the deceased was doing agricultural work and coolie work. He was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. He was aged 24 years as on the date of accident.
3. On issuance of summons, the respondent – Corporation appeared before the Tribunal and filed its objection denying the petition averments. It is stated that the accident had not occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. First claimant examined herself as PW.1 and also examined eye witness PW.2 apart from marking 14 documents. The respondent - Corporation examined the driver of the bus as RW.1. The Tribunal based on the material placed on record awarded total compensation of Rs.6,48,200/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization on the following heads :-
The respondent – Corporation 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- Corporation and learned counsel for the respondents/claimants. Perused the entire material on record.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Tribunal committed an error in applying the multiplier of ‘18’ taking the age of the deceased. It is his submission that the Tribunal ought to have taken the age of the younger parent to apply the multiplier. Further it is submitted that the deceased was aged 24 years as on the date of accident and was a bachelor. The Tribunal committed an error in taking the deduction towards personal expenses at 1/3rd instead of 50%. Thus he prays for allowing the appeal.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents–claimants would submit that the Tribunal has rightly taken the age of the deceased for applying the multiplier. The deceased was aged 24 years and the Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of ‘18’. Further he submits that the accident is of the year 2012 and the income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.4,000/- per month is on the lower side. The Tribunal ought to have assessed the income minimum at Rs.7,000/- per month. Therefore, deduction made at 1/3rd towards personal expenses would compensate the same. Thus he prays for dismissal of the appeal.
7. On hearing the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the material placed on record, the only point that arise for consideration is as to “Whether the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal requires interference ? The impugned judgment and award needs no interference for the following reason :
The occurrence of the accident on 09.05.2012 involving Motor Bike bearing Reg.No.KA-02-HA-494 and the Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-18-F-334 and the accidental death of one Venkatesh is not in dispute in this appeal. The appellant – Corporation states that the Tribunal committed an error in applying the multiplier of ‘18’ taking the age of the deceased. It is his submission that the proper multiplier to be applied is by taking the age of the younger parent. But as on this date, the settled law is that the multiplier is to be applied taking the age of the deceased. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sube Singh and Another vs. Shyam Singh (Dead) and Others (2018) 3 SCC 18, at paragraph Nos.1, 3, 4 & 5 has held as follows:
“1. The sole question to be answered in this appeal is: whether the High Court was right in applying multiplier 14 for determining compensation amount in a motor accident claim case in reference to the age of parents of the deceased whilst relying on the decision of this Court in Ashvinbhai Jayantilal Modi Vs. Ramkaran Ramchandra Sharma ?
2. XXXXX 3. According to the appellants, the correct multiplier to be applied in the facts of the present case is 18, as the deceased was only 23 years of age on the date of accident. To buttress this submission, reliance is placed on the decision in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation. Reliance is also placed on the recent judgment of this Court (Three Judge Bench) in the case of Munna Lal Jain Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma, which has restated the legal position that multiplier should depend on the age of the deceased and not on the age of the dependents.
4. On the basis of the finding recorded by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court, it is evident that the deceased was 23 years of age on the date of accident i.e. 22.09.2009. He was unmarried and his parents who filed the petition for compensation were in the age group of 40 to 45 years. The High Court, relying on the decision in Ashvinbhai Jayantilal Modi held that multiplier 14 will be applicable in the present case, keeping in mind the age of the parents of the deceased. The legal position, however, is no more res integra. In Munna Lal Jain decided by a three Judge Bench of this Court, it is held that multiplier should depend on the age of the deceased and not on the age of the dependants. We may usefully refer to the exposition in paras 11 and 12 of the reported decision, which read thus: (Munna Lal Jain case, SCC pp. 351-52) “11. The remaining question is only on multiplier. The High Court following Santosh Devi has taken 13 as the multiplier. Whether the multiplier should depend on the age of the dependents or that of the deceased, has been hanging fire for sometime; but that has been given a quietus by another three Judge Bench decision in Reshma Kumari. It was held that the multiplier is to be used with reference to the age of the deceased. One reason appears to be that there is certainty with regard to the age of the deceased but as far as that of dependents is concerned, there will always be room for dispute as to whether the age of the eldest or youngest or even the average etc. is to be taken. To quote: (Reshma Kumari case SCC P.88, para 36) “36. In Sarla Verma, this Court has endeavoured to simplify the otherwise complex exercise of assessment of loss of dependency and determination of compensation in a claim made under Section 166. It has been rightly stated in Sarla Verma that the claimants in case of death claim for the purposes of compensation must establish (a) age of the deceased. (b) income of the deceased; and (c) the number of dependents. To arrive at the loss of dependency, the Tribunal must consider (i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income; (ii) the deductions to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased. We do not think it is necessary for us to revisit the law on the point as we are in full agreement with the view in Sarla Verma.”
12. In Sarla Verma at para 19 a two- Judge Bench dealt with this aspect in Step 2. T o quote: (SCC p.133) “19. … Step 2 (ascertaining the multiplier) Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked out for the accident having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of multipliers with reference to the age has been identified by this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table with reference to the age of the deceased.”
5. Considering the aforementioned principle expounded in Sarla Verma, which has been affirmed by the Constitution Bench of this Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, the appellants are justified in insisting for applying multiplier 18.
The above decision makes it abundantly clear that the multiplier should depend on the age of the deceased and not on the age of the dependents. The Tribunal rightly applied the multiplier of ‘18’ taking the age of the deceased, which needs no interference. The deceased was aged 24 years and he was a bachelor. Admittedly the Tribunal has made deduction at 1/3rd of the assessed income of Rs.4,000/- per month. It is stated that the deceased was earning more than Rs.10,000/- per month. But the notional income that would be assessed by this Court and Lok Adalath while settling the accident claims of the year 2012 would be Rs.7,000/- per month. The deduction to be taken towards personal expenses if the deceased was bachelor would be 50%. But as the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased on much lower side and has taken the deduction of personal expenses at 1/3rd, the same would require no interference. If the income of the deceased was assessed properly at Rs.7,000/- per month and deduction at 50% is taken, the claimants would be entitled for much more compensation than the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. It is well settled that it is the responsibility of the Tribunal/Courts to determine fair and just compensation. As such, I am of the view, that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal does not warrant interference.
The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal has awarded Rs.65,000/- on conventional heads. Relying upon the decision in NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v/s PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 submits that the claimants would be entitled to only Rs.30,000/- on conventional heads. In view of the said decision, the compensation awarded on conventional heads is reduced from Rs.65,000/- to Rs.30,000/-. The compensation awarded on the head loss of dependency remains undisturbed.
8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award is modified and the claimant is entitled to reduced compensation in a sum of Rs.6,13,200/- as against Rs.6,48,200/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6% 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