IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT MFA No.999 OF 2018 (MV) BETWEEN:
1. Smt. Lakshmidevamma, W/o. Late Rajappa @ Rajanna, Now aged about 33 years, 2. Kum. Ambika R., D/o. Late Rajappa @ Rajanna, Now aged about 14 years, 3. Kum. R. Bindu, D/o. Late Rajappa @ Rajanna, Now aged about 12 years, 4. Sri. M. Krishnappa, S/o. Late Munishamappa @ Pinjanna, Now aged about 70 years, 5. Smt. Susheelamma, W/o. M. Krishnappa, Now aged about 68 years, 2nd and 3rd minor appellants represented by natural guardian/ their mother, 1st appellant herein.
All are residing at:
Balleri Village, Halepalya Post, Malur Taluk, Kolar District. ... Appellants (By Sri. N. Gopal Krishna, Advocate) AND:
1. Sri. Somareddy, S/o. Nagareddy, Major in age, Residing at No.29, B. Byagadadenahalli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru District – 562 106.
2. Sriram General Insurance Company Limited, No.5, 2nd Floor, Monarch Chambers, Infantry Road, Bengaluru – 560 001. Represented by its Manager. ... Respondents (By Sri. B. Pradeep, Advocate for R2;
Vide order dated 14.10.2019, notice to R1 is dispensed with) This MFA is filed u/s 173(1) of MV Act against the Judgment and Award dated 07.02.2017 passed in MVC No.576/2015 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, JMFC Malur, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
This MFA coming on for Orders, this day, the Court delivered the following:-
JUDGMENT This appeal by the claimants calls in question the judgment and award dated 07.02.2017 entered by the MACT, Malur, whereby the claim petition in MVC No.576/2015 has been partly allowed awarding a compensation of Rs.11,88,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. subject to a usual condition, as to bank deposit. The appeal is founded on the ground of inadequacy of compensation. After service of notice, respondent No.2-
insurer having entered appearance through his Senior Panel Counsel Sri. Pradeep B., opposes the appeal.
2. Brief facts:
(a) In a vehicular accident that happened on 13.06.2015 at about 04.30 P.M. near Santhehalli, because of rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry bearing Registration No.KA-53, 4417, one Mr.Rajappa who was riding his motor cycle bearing Registration No.KA-08-R- 2243 having been knocked down sustained vital injuries to which he succumbed a bit later, on the spot itself.
(b) The dependants of the deceased namely widow, children and parents preferred a claim petition in MVC No.576/2015 that was stoutly opposed by the insurer by filing Objection Statement. To prove the claim, the widow of the deceased namely Smt. Lakshmidevamma was examined as PW1, and in her evidence 15 documents came to be produced as Ex.P1 to Ex.P15; these documents inter alia comprised of Police Papers, RTO papers and Postmortem Report; from the side of insurer, none was examined nor any documents were produced.
3. The MACT, after looking to the pleadings of the parties and after adverting to the evidentiary material placed by the claimants on record has entered the judgment & award that are put in challenge in this appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the claimants finds fault with the impugned judgment & award on two grounds:
(a) for the accident year 2015, the Lok Adalath Notional Income Chart mentions approximately a monthly income of Rs.8,500-9000/-, whereas the MACT has taken income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- with no justification; he adumbrates this contention by referring to the RTC, copies of which were marked as Ex.P12 to Ex.P15, although they stand in the name of the father of the deceased;
(b) in view of the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited V/s Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, that was made invocable by non-governmental employees too in Hem Raj Vs. Oriental Insurance Company, (2018) 15 SCC 654, the MACT ought to have granted increment at the rate of 40% since deceased was aged 35 years.
5. Per contra, the learned Senior Panel Counsel for respondent No.2-insurer submits that:
(a) the MACT being a statutory adjudicatory Tribunal in its accumulated wisdom has fixed the parameters which ordinarily the appellate Court would respect;
(b) the copies of RTC which the claimants bank upon vide Ex.P12 to Ex.P15, admittedly stand in the name of father of the deceased, although the said father too is no more and therefore, they cannot be much banked upon;
(c) the Lok Adalath Notional Income Chart is only an ideal Guideline and not Euclids theorem and therefore, it admits lesser values by pragmatics; that being so, 10% this side or that side is always admissible; and, (d) ordinarily the interest is awardable at the rate of 6% p.a. in all claim petitions; in the absence of special circumstances, MACT is not justified in awarding 8% p.a.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the appeal papers, this Court grants limited indulgence in the matter as under:
(a) The deceased Rajappa admittedly was aged 35 years; the Lok Adalath Notional Income Chart for the accident year 2015 mentions Rs.8500-9000/- as monthly income; this apart, the claimants had produced four copies of RTC vide Ex.P12-Ex.P15, although, they stand in the name of late father of the deceased victim; thus it can be safely presumed that deceased had some income from agricultural land too; all this supports the contention of the claimants for the enhancement of monthly income value of the deceased; regard being had to all the relevant factors, this Court re-fixes the monthly income at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per month.
(b) The argument of the learned counsel for the claimants that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pranya Sethi’s case followed by Hem Raj supra, the claimants are entitled to have increment by way of loss of future prospects at the rate of 40% is sustainable and therefore, the income is re-fixed accordingly, as under:
Income now revised at Rs.8,000/- p.m. Add: 40% Future prospects Rs.3,200/- p.m.
Rs.11,200/- p.m.
Less: ¼ Rs.2,800/-
Rs.8,400/-
1. Loss of Dependency Rs.8,400 x 12 x 16 2. Transportation of dead body & funeral obsequies 16,12,800.00 30,000.00 3. Loss of Consortium 1,00,000.00 4. Care and guardian of minors 50,000.00 Total Rs.17,92,800.00 There is force in the contention of the learned Senior Panel Counsel for the insurer that ordinarily, the interest awardable on compensation needs to be 6% p.a. in the absence of special circumstances; this court in a catena of decisions has taken such a view; therefore, the rate of interest awarded by the MACT at 8% p.a. needs to be downwardly revised to 6% p.a.
In the above circumstances, this appeal succeeds in part; the impugned judgment & award are modified by enhancing the compensation from Rs.11,88,000/- to Rs.17,92,800/- [Rupees Seventeen Lakh Ninety Two Thousand Eight Hundred] only. Further, the rate of interest is downwardly revised from 8% to 6% per annum.
All other terms and conditions are kept intact.
Insurer shall make good the deficiency, before long.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE sv