IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR MFA NO. 1896 OF 2015 (MV) BETWEEN THE LEGAL MANAGER ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NO.89, SVR COMPLEX 2ND FLOOR, HOSUR MAIN ROAD MADIVALA BANGALORE-560 068.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI. H. N. KESHAVA PRASHANTH - ADVOCATE) AND 1. SMT. VEDHA W/O MURALI. J. N NOW AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS 2. KUM SINCHANA D/O MURALI. J.N NOW AGED ABOUT 3 ½ YEARS 3. NAGARAJAPPA S/O LATE MARIAPPA NOW AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS 4. SAROJAMMA W/O NAGARAJAPPA NOW AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS SINCE RESPONDENT NO.2 IS MINOR, REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN & MOTHER APPELLANT NO.1 ALL ARE RESIDING AT:
GINNAGGARA, DODDA GATTIGUBBE POST JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BANGALORE – 562114.
5. PRUTHVI. H.D S/O DEVARAJ NO.28/9, 2ND CROSS GANESHA BLOCK SULTAN PALYA, R.T. NAGAR BANGALORE – 560032.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. T. GURUDEVA PRASAD – ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-4;
SRI K. N. PUTTE GOWDA –ADV., FOR R-5) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.11.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO. 218/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE 5TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND 24TH ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MAYO HALL UNIT, BANGALORE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.23,10,064/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF ITS REALIZATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Though this matter is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. This appeal is preferred by the appellant/insurance company seeking to set-aside the judgment and award dated 07.11.2014 rendered by the Tribunal in MVC No.218/2014.
3. The factual matrix of the appeal is as under:
It is stated in the claim petition that on 23.12.2013 at about 12.15 AM when the deceased by name Murali was proceeding in a Motor Cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-53/J-3127, on Kadugodi main road, when he reached near railway quarters, a Car bearing Reg.No.KA-02/MH-6043 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the vehicle of the deceased, due to the said impact, deceased sustained severe head injuries all over the body. Immediately, after the accident, Murali was shifted to Vydehi hospital and thereafter to NIMHANS hospital, and then to Manipal Hospital, wherein he succumbed to the injuries later during the course of treatment. The deceased was hale and healthy prior to the accident and he was aged 32 years and was driver by profession at Banashankari Travels, Srinivasnagar, Bangalore and was earning Rs.15,000/- p.m. plus Rs.250/- per day as batta and used to contribute his entire income for maintenance of his family. Due to his untimely death, petitioners being wife, children and parents of deceased are put to untold hardship and facing difficulty to eak out their livelihood. On these grounds, petitioners filed claim petition seeking compensation.
4. On issuance of summons, respondents 1 and 2 appeared before the Tribunal through their respective counsel and filed written statement separately, denying the averments made in the petition. Based upon the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the issues. In order to prove their case, petitioner no.1 was examined as PW.1 and Exs.P1 to P14 were got marked and they also got examined one witness by name Basavaraju D.L. as PW.2 and got marked Ex.P.15. Respondents did not adduce any evidence on their behalf. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and so also respondents, and on evaluation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal rendered the impugned judgment, awarding compensation of Rs.23,10,064/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation. It is this judgment which is challenged by the insurance company by urging various grounds.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the judgment and award of the Tribunal holding that claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.23,10,064/- with interest @ 6% p.a. and directing the appellant to pay the same is not justified by proper appreciation of evidence and documents. He contends, that the driver of the offending car was not having valid and effective driving license and the owner was not having valid permit and there is violation of policy conditions. Further, the notional income of the deceased taken by the Tribunal at Rs.10,000/- p.m. is without any basis and highly excessive and liable to be scaled down. The Tribunal erred in adding 30% towards future prospects to the income of the deceased without any basis, as in the case on hand, the deceased was a driver and having a permanent job. Further, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads is on higher side and needs to be scaled down. On all these grounds, seeks for intervention of this Court.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants has taken me through the evidence of PW.1 said to be the wife of deceased. He contends that the Tribunal after evaluating the documentary evidence on record, such as, Ex.P1 – FIR, Ex.P1(a) – complaint, Ex.P1(b) Statement of petitioner no.3, Ex.P2 – spot mahazar, Ex.P2(a) – spot sketch, Ex.P3 – IMV report, Ex.P4 – Post Mortem report, Ex.P5-inquest report, Ex.P.6 – Charge sheet, Ex.P.7 – letter given by employer of the deceased and other important documents, has passed the judgment and award, which is just and proper. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence/material on record has rightly assessed the income of the deceased and awarded just and fair compensation, which does not call for interference and prays for dismissal of the appeal.
7. In the backdrop of the contentions as taken by the learned counsel for the appellant and so also learned counsel for the respondents, it is relevant to state that there is no dispute about death of one Murali who died in a road traffic accident. Petitioner No.1 is the wife, Petitioner No.2 is the minor daughter, Petitioner No.3 and 4 are the parents of the deceased Murali. On careful evaluation of the material on record, the Tribunal has held that due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending car, the accident has occurred and the deceased had succumbed to the accidental injuries. Further, the Tribunal negatived the contention of the insurance company that due to the negligent riding of the deceased, the accident occurred as it has not proved the same by adducing any oral or documentary evidence. I find no justifiable ground to interfere with this finding of the Tribunal.
8. The Tribunal while assessing the income of the deceased, has taken Rs.10,000/- as notional income and considering the nature of work, age of the deceased and evidence of PW.2 has awarded Rs.16,64,064/- toward loss of dependency. The petitioner no.1 has lost her husband at a very young age of 23 years, petitioner no.2 is a minor child and petitioners 3 and 4 are the age old parents. They have lost the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to the family. Keeping in view all these aspects, the Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- towards loss of love and affection of the deceased, Rs.20,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.50,000/- each towards loss of consortium and loss of estate and Rs.2,76,000/- towards medical expenses. There is a reciprocity of love and affection in between the wife and husband, child and father and they have lost passionate with the deceased. Therefore, looking from any angle, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal awarding compensation of Rs.23,10,064/- with interest @ 6% p.a. is neither found to be unjust nor unreasonable. The Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation on evaluation of oral and documentary evidence on record and it does not call for any interference of this court. The appeal being devoid of merits, has to be rejected. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Appeal is hereby rejected. The impugned judgment and award dated 07.11.2014 passed by the MACT in MVC No.218/2014 is hereby confirmed.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned MACT, forthwith.
The appellant-insurer shall deposit the remaining amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment and on such deposit, the same shall be disbursed to the claimants, on proper identification. However, the impugned judgment and award, in so far as it relates to apportionment and deposit is concerned, shall remain unaltered.
There shall be no order as to the costs. Office to draw the decree accordingly.
DKB SD/- JUDGE