IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT M.F.A.NO.2566 OF 2014 (MV) BETWEEN 1. Kum. Nethravathi D/o Sri. Dala Muniyappa @ Muniyappa, Aged about 23 years, 2. Kum. Manjula D/o Sri. Dala Muniyappa @ Muniyappa, Aged about 21 years, 3. Sri. Lakshmana @ Chikkanna S/o Sri. Dala Muniyappa @ Muniyappa, Aged about 18 years, Since dead, rep. by his LRs.
i.e., the Appellants 1 and 2 above.
All are residing at No.35, 35th Main Road, 15th Cross, Kalashree Nagara, Bengaluru – 560 057. ... Appellants (By Sri. Manmohan D., Advocate) AND 1. Sri. Hanumantharayappa S/o Byranna, aged major, R/at No.8, Tarabanahalli, Besides St. Anthony School, Hesaraghatta, Bengaluru – 560 090.
2. The Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd., No.210, 213, ‘A’ Wing, Crystal Plaza, New Link Road, 2nd Floor, Off. Infinity Hall, Andheri West, Mumbai – 58.
By its Manager. ... Respondents (By Sri. H.N. Keshava Prashanth, Advocate for R2; Notice to R1 is d/w v/o dated 27.01.2015) This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of M.V.Act against the judgment and award dated 02.09.2013 passed in MVC.No.3913/2012 on the file of the XXII Additional Small Causes Judge and Member MACT, Bengaluru, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
This MFA is coming on for Admission, this day, the court made the following:
J U D G M E N T The claimants are in appeal under Section 173 (1) of Motor Vehicles Act, not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the judgment and award dated 02.09.2013 in M.V.C. No.3913/2012 on the file of MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.
2. The claimants are daughters and son of the deceased by name Smt. Jayamma. During the pendency of the claim petition, son of the deceased also died.
3. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, claiming compensation for the death of one Smt. Jayamma in a road traffic accident occurred on 08.04.2012.
4. It is stated that on 08.04.2012, when the deceased was walking on the extreme left side of the Bengaluru – Tumakuru road towards Tumakuru, Maruthi car bearing Reg.No.KA-52-M-1852 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased. Due to which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, she was shifted to Premier Sanjeevini Hospital and thereafter to M.S.Ramaiah Hospital, subsequently, the deceased succumbed to the injuries. It is stated that the deceased was working as Coolie and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. She was maintaining the entire family on her earning and was the sole earning member in the family. It is also stated that the deceased was aged 47 years as on the date of accident.
5. On issuance of notice, the respondents appeared before the Tribunal. Respondent No.2-Insurer filed written statement and admitted the issuance of insurance policy in respect of offending Maruthi Car but denied the claim petition averments. Insurer also denied the occurrence of the accident in a rash and negligent manner as alleged in the petition. Further the insurer contended that the accident occurred solely due to negligence of the deceased.
6. Claimant No.1 examined herself as PW.1 and got marked 11 documents as Ex.P.1 to P.11.
7. The Tribunal on appreciating the material placed on record, awarded total compensation of Rs.4,33,000/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition, till the date of realization on the following heads:
Amount in (Rs.)
While awarding the above compensation, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month and applied multiplier of ‘11’ taking the age of the deceased as 49 years. The claimants not being satisfied with quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is before this Court in this appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsels for the parties. Perused the material on record including lower court records.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.4,500/- per month is on the lower side. He submits that the deceased was working as Coolie and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. As the accident is of the year 2012, even a Coolie at that time would have earned more than Rs.300/- per day which would be more than Rs.9,000/- per month. He further submits that the Tribunal committed an error in applying the multiplier of ‘11’ when it had taken the age of the deceased as 49 years. For the age group between 46 to 50 years, the appropriate multiplier would be ‘13’. Therefore, he prays for applying the multiplier of ‘13’. He further contended that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head of ‘Future Prospectus’ for which, the claimant would be entitled for 25% of the assessed income in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680.
Thus, he prays for enhancement of compensation.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent- Insurance Company submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just compensation which needs no interference by this Court with the judgment and award. He submits that claimant No.1 stated that the age of the deceased was 47 years but the Tribunal looking to the post mortem report and other material, has taken the age of the deceased at 49 years. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, the following points arises for consideration in this appeal;
a) whether the assessment of income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- is proper and correct?
b) Whether the claimants would be entitled for ‘Future Prospects’ at 25% of the assessed income as contended?
c) Whether the claimants would be entitled for enhanced compensation?
Answer to point No.1 would be in the negative and Point Nos.2 and 3 are in the affirmative for the following reasons.
12. The accident occurred on 08.04.2012 involving Maruthi Car bearing Reg.No.KA-52-M-1852 and accidental death of Smt. Jayamma are not in dispute in this appeal. The appeal is for enhancement of compensation by the claimants. It is stated that claimant No.3 son of the deceased also died during the pendency of the appeal. The daughters of the deceased are before this Court praying for enhancement of compensation. The notional income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.4,500/- per month is on the lower side. Looking to the standard of living in the year 2012 and minimum wages, definitely a Coolie would have also earned a sum of Rs.300/- per day as contended by the learned counsel for the claimants. This Court and the Lok Adalath while determining the compensation in Motor Vehicles Accident cases would normally take notional income for the accidents of the year 2012 at Rs.7,000/- per month. In the present case also, as there is no material on record to indicate the exact income of the deceased, it would be appropriate to take Rs.7,000/- per month as notional income of the deceased. Further, the Tribunal has taken the age of the deceased at 49 years but applied the multiplier of ‘11’ which is wholly incorrect. Appropriate multiplier for the age group of 46 to 50 years would be ‘13’ and in the instant case, multiplier of ‘13’ is to be applied for calculation of compensation. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of PRANAY SETHI stated supra has laid down that the claimants would be entitled for addition of 25% of the assessed income towards ‘Future Prospects’ wherever the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years. As the deceased was aged 49 years of age, the claimants would be entitled for adding 25% of the assessed income towards ‘Future Prospects’. The claimants would be entitled for a sum of Rs.30,000/- on ‘Conventional Head’. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for the following modified compensation;
1. Loss of Dependency including Future Prospects (7,000+25%=1,750 8,750-1/3=2,916 5,834x12x13) Amount in (Rs.) 9,10,104 2. Conventional Head 30,000 Total 9,40,104 13. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for total compensation of Rs.9,40,104/- as against Rs.4,33,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
14. The enhanced compensation be equally distributed to appellant Nos.1 and 2 since appellant No.3 has died during the pendency of the appeal. Out of the enhanced compensation, Rs.1,50,000/- each shall be kept in fixed deposit in any Nationalized / Scheduled Bank in the name of appellant Nos.1 and 2 for a period of five years.
The judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to the above extent. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.
Sd/- JUDGE HA/-