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 M.F.A.NO. 2268 OF 2018 (MV) BETWEEN 1. Smt. Kasturi Nag @ Nag Kasturi W/o Late Abi Nag Aged about 43 years 2. Chaitanya Nag S/o Late Abi Nag Aged about 20 years Both are r/at Lakapai Village Seriguma Taluk Rayagada District Orissa State. …Appellants (By Sri. Shantharaj.K., Advocate) AND 1. Managing Director V.R.L. Logistics Ltd., Bengaluru Road Varuru Hobli Dharwad District 581 207.
2. IFCO TOKYO General Insurance Company Ltd., Bandra West, Mumbai Service address:
IFCO TOKYO General Insurance Company Ltd. Represented by its Manager M.B.V.A. Mansion 1st Floor, 3rd Cross Above Uco Bank M.G.Road Tumakuru-572 101. …Respondents (By Sri. B.Pradeep, Advocate for R2; Notice to R1 dispensed with) This appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act against the judgment and order dated 16.02.2018 passed in MVC No.33/2016 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & Additional MACT, JMFC, Sira, 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 This appeal has been filed by the appellants-claimants challenging the impugned judgment and award dated 16.02.2018 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge & Addl. MACT, Sira (for short ‘the tribunal’) in MVC.No.33/2016 awarding a sum of Rs.9,74,000/- together with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit on account of the death of the deceased in a road traffic accident that occurred on 24.11.2015.
2. Though the matter is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
3. Both the counsels submit that the occurrence of accident as well as the coverage of the policy of the offending vehicle by the Insurance Company are not in dispute and this appeal is restricted to quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants-claimants submits that the Tribunal committed an error in taking the notional income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/- instead of Rs.9,000/- per month in the light of the Lok Adalat guidelines since the accident occurred in the year 2015. It is further contended that the Tribunal was erred in not adding 40% towards future prospects to the income as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. It is also contended that the Tribunal committed an error in not awarding any compensation towards ‘loss of estate’ and the compensation awarded towards ‘loss of consortium’ is also very meager and inadequate. He therefore requests for modification of the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent- Insurance Company would support the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
6. I have given my careful consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
7. A perusal of the impugned judgment and award would indicate that the Tribunal committed an error in taking the notional income as Rs.8,000/- as against Rs.9,000/- p.m. as per the Lok Adalat guidelines, since the accident occurred in the year 2015. The Tribunal also committed an error in not applying the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi’s case, wherein, 40% is to be added to the income of the deceased since the deceased was aged about 20 years on the date of the accident. Since the deceased was a bachelor, 50% would have to be deducted towards personal expenses and consequently, the notional income comes to Rs.6,300/- p.m.
8. Applying the Lok Adalat guidelins and the aforesaid law laid down by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi’s case, I am of the opinion that the income to be reckoned for the purpose of ascertaining the ‘loss of dependency’ would be Rs.6,300/- p.m. Thus, the appellants-claimants would be entitled to the total compensation under the head ‘loss of dependency’ would come to Rs.13,60,800/- (Rs.6300x12x18). Thus, the appellants-claimants are entitled to additional enhanced compensation of Rs.4,96,800/- under this head.
9. The impugned judgment and award under conventional heads is just and proper.
10. Thus, in all the appellants-claimants are entitled to an additional enhanced compensation of Rs.4,96,800/-.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I pass the following:
ORDER 1. The appeal is partly allowed.
2. the appellants-claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.4,96,800/- which shall carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.
3. The apportionment and disbursement to be done as per the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
Sd/- JUDGE SSD