IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. L. NARAYANA SWAMY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8770 OF 2013 (MV) BETWEEN:
1. SMT.KENCHAMMA W/O LATE GANGADHARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS 2. THIPPESWAMY S/O LATE GANGADHARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS 3. OBALESHA S/O LATE GANGADHARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS, 4. KENCHAPPA S/O HUCHOBANNA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, APPELLANTS NOS.2 & 3 ARE MINORS THEY ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN APPELLANT NO.1 HEREIN ALL ARE R/O KENNADALU VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TALUK - 577 524 ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI.B.PRAMOD, ADV.) AND:
1. R.T.RAMESH S/O R.S. THIPPERUDRAPPA, MAJOR, OWNER OF TRACTOR TRAILER, BEARING NO. KA-40, T994-95, R/O. RANGENHALLY VILLAGE, HIRIYUR TALUK – 572 143 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMMENCING, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR, SHANKARA MUTT ROAD, SHASHIKIRAN BUILDING, SHIMOGA – 577 201 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.N.KESHAV PRASHANTH, ADV. FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:30.08.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.303/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CJM, MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, CHITRADURGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T For the death of the only breadwinner in the accident that took place on 16th May 2012, the claimants who are the wife, children and the father of the deceased, made claim petition before the Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-III, Chitradurga seeking compensation. The Tribunal, by its judgment and award dated 30th August, 2013 passed in MVC No.303 of 2012 awarded compensation of Rs.13,76,500/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. He submits that, including the deceased, there were five members in the family whom the deceased was looking after. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head love and affection and under the head loss of consortium is also meagre. Hence, he submits that in all respects the compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires to be enhanced.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Insurer submits to dismiss the appeal. He submits that considering the oral, documentary and material evidence the Tribunal has awarded Rs.13,76,500/- which is just and proper and there is no scope for interference in this appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment and the lower court records. The accident is not in dispute and the deceased has succumbed to the accidental injuries is also not in dispute. The claimants have stated in the claim petition that the deceased was an agriculturist and was also doing sheep business through which he was earning an income of Rs.2,00,000/- per annum. The Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month. In the cases where the income of the deceased is not proved by producing any documentary and material evidence, then notional income needs to be taken. The notional income is to be taken keeping in mind the relevant factors like the year of accident, place of residence, number of dependents, cost of living prevalent then, etc. In the instant case, the accident is of the year 2012. The claimants have stated that the deceased was earning Rs.2,00,000/- per annum but have not produced any proof to that effect. Apart from the deceased, the family consisted another four dependents who are wife, children and the father of the deceased. The place of residence is Chitradurga which is a District Headquarter. Considering the cost of living prevalent then, the notional income shall be taken at Rs.7,500/- per month which comes to Rs.250/- per day which cannot be said to be on the higher side considering the size of the family and the age of the deceased. Hence, the same is taken. Secondly, the Tribunal has given deduction at 1/3rd which is an error. Since the dependants are four in number the deduction is to be given at one fourth instead of one third. After giving deduction at one fourth the monthly income comes to Rs.5,625/-. Hence, the calculation would be Rs.5,625/- x 12 x 16=Rs.10,80,000/-. The same is awarded as against Rs.6,40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head loss of dependency. In the facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the fact that the enhanced amount shall also carry interest, in my considered opinion, awarding Rs.5,00,000/- globally, would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, a global compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- is awarded in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal. It is made clear that the enhanced amount does not carry any interest and the apportionment of the enhanced compensation shall be in the ratio as is awarded by the Tribunal.
Appeal is allowed in part.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE lnn