IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. P. SANDESH M.F.A. NO. 6431 OF 2012 (MV) BETWEEN:
1. M L Munikrishna s/o late Lakkappa Now aged about 58 years.
2. Smt.Manjula w/o M L Munikrishna Now aged about 50 years.
Both are r/a No.1660 East End `A’ Main Road 30th Cross, 9th Block Jayanagar, Bangalore-560069. ... Appellants (By Sri N R Rangegowda for Sri S Raghavendra, Advocates) AND 1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chikpet Branch, No.40, 1st Floor Lakshmi Complex, K R Road, Fort Bangalore – 560 002.
2. D.G.M., BMTC., K H Road Shanthinagar, Bangalore-27. ... Respondents ((By Sri O Mahesh, Advocate for R1, Notice to R2 dispensed with v/o dtd: 25/7/2012) This MFA filed u/S 173(1) of MV Act against the judgment and award dated 5.4.2012 passed in MVC No.5652/2009 on the file of the XII Additional Small Causes Judge, Member, MACT, Bangalore, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
This appeal is coming on for hearing this day the Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T This appeal is filed by the appellants-claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 05.04.2012, passed in MVC No.5652/2009 on the file of XII Additional Small Causes Judge, and Member M.A.C.T. at Bengaluru questioning the quantum of compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Tribunal.
3. The factual matrix of the case are that on 27.07.2009 at about 11 p.m. one Mr. Ronald Narona being the driver of a BMTC Volvo bus bearing Registration No.KA-01-FA-1365 drove the same on 8th main road of J.P.
Nagar, Bengaluru in a direction from south to north in high speed, rash and negligent manner and at the junction of 8th main road and south End ‘B’ Cross road, he dashed the said bus against hind portion of a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-05-HH-3555 which was riding by the deceased Sharath on the said road in the same direction at that time. As a result of the said impact, the deceased Sharath was knocked down on the road and thereby sustained head injury and died on the spot.
4. It is the contention of the claimants that deceased Sharath Kumar was aged about 28 years and he was working as a Civil Engineer and earning Rs.50,000/- per month. Hence, claims compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-
5. The respondent No.1 appeared through the counsel and filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition. He contended that liability is subject to the terms and condition of the policy. It is contended that accident has not all taken place due to the negligent driving of the BMTC bus driver, the accident has occurred due to the negligent driving of the deceased himself. Hence insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation.
6. The claimants in order to substantiate their claim, examined claimant No.1 as P.W.1 and got marked 10 documents, Ex.P.1 to 10. Respondent No.1 examined three witnesses as R.Ws.1 to 3 and R.W.1 are examined and relied upon eleven documents and got marked documents Exs.R.1 to R.11.
7. The Tribunal after considering both oral and documentary evidence allowed the claim petition in part granting compensation of Rs.3,32,000/- with 6% interest p.a. from the date of the claim petition till its realization.
The claimants being aggrieved by the judgment and award are before this Court in this appeal.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in taking the income as Rs.4,000/- per month and the accident has taken place in the year 2009 and the Tribunal did not consider the future prospects and compensation awarded on all the other heads are very meager and it requires interference of this Court. The learned counsel reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding compensation on future prospectus and it has taken lower income. Hence the judgment and award requires to be. modified.
9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that the Tribunal has not committed an error and considering both oral and documentary evidence has rightly taken his income as Rs.4,000/- p.m. and does not requires interference of this Court.
10. Having heard the arguments on both the learned counsel for the parties and considering the rival contention of both sides, the point that arise for consideration of this Court are:
“1. Whether the Court below has committed an error in not awarding just and reasonable compensation?
2. Whether it requires any interference of this Court ?
3. What order?”
11. The claim of the claimants is that the deceased was working as Civil Engineer and he was earning Rs.50,000/- per month. In order to substantiate the same the claimants have not produced any document to show that he was earning Rs.50,000/- p.m. and also any educational qualification documents. The Tribunal while considering the claim of the deceased taken the amount as Rs.4,000/- per month. But this accident has taken place in the year 2009. When there is no document with regard to his income, the Tribunal ought to have taken the notional income. The amount taken by Tribunal Rs.4,000/- appears to be little lower side. For the year of accident 2009, it requires re-consideration and the notional income is taken as sum of Rs.5,000/- p.m. instead of Rs.4,000/-p.m. by adding Rs.1,000/-
12. The Tribunal while applying multiplier has taken younger age of the parents and the same is not correct. The Tribunal has adopted multiplier of 13. But having regard to the age of deceased who was aged 28 years at the time of the accident, the proper multiplier would be 17 as per Sarla Verma’s case. Further, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, future prospects 40% is to be added to his income as he is a bachelor. Accordingly, compensation under the head loss of dependency is re-worked out as under:
13. Further, under the conventional heads, the Tribunal has awarded in all a sum of Rs.20,000/- and he is a bachelor and hence the Tribunal ought to have awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/-.
14. In all, the claimants will be entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 7,24,000/- as against Rs.3,32,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The compensation amount shall carry interest @ 6% P.A. since the accident was occurred in 2009.
15. In view of the discussions made above, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER (i) The appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award of the tribunal is modified and a sum of Rs. 7,24,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum is awarded to the appellants.
(ii) Respondent is directed to pay the amount within eight weeks from today.
(iii) Send the lower court records forthwith.
Sd/- JUDGE HR