IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B. A. PATIL MFA No.1620/2012 (MV) Between:
1. Mallaiah s/o Honnaiah aged about 48 years.
2. Mallamma d/o Mallaiah aged about 25 years.
3. Jayamma d/o Mallaiah aged about 23 years.
4. Shekar s/o Mallaiah aged about 21 years.
All are r/a Ramanahalli village Honnavalli Hobli, Tiptur Taluk Tumkur – 572 101.
Presently r/a Jajuru Kasaba Hobli Arasikere Taluk – 573103 Hassan – 573 201. .. Appellants (By Sri G B Maruthi, Advocate) And Manager, K.S.R.T.C Shimoga, Shimoga District – 577201. .. Respondent (By Smt.H R Renuka, Advocate) This MFA is filed U/s 173(1) of MV Act against the judgment and award dated 26.11.2010 passed in MVC No.208/2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC and Member, MACT, Arsikere, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
This appeal is coming on for admission this day, the court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T This appeal has been preferred by the appellants/claimants assailing the judgment and award passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC and MACT, Arsikere in MVC No.208/2008 dated 26.11.2010.
2. Heard. Appeal is admitted. With the consent of the leaned counsel appearing for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.
3. Brief facts leading to the case are that,-
On 2.10.2007 at about 3.30 p.m., the 1st claimant along with his wife, Gowramma and others were proceeding in a goods auto bearing Regn. No.KA-13-A- 268 along with purchased goods. When they came near Bisalehalli Gate and were passing through Arsikere – Mysuru road and at that time, a KSRTC bus bearing Regn. No.KA-17-F-827 came rashly and negligently and dashed against the said auto and as a result, the said autorickshaw turtle and the wife of the 1st claimant, Gowramma sustained grievous injuries. Immediately she was shifted to hospital. After 15 days, when she was under treatment, she succumbed to the injuries. It is further contended that the deceased was doing agricultural coolie work and earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- p.m. The claimants had spent about Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and other incidental charges. For having lost the bread earner, the appellants/claimants, who are the husband and children, have filed the claim petition claiming compensation.
4. In pursuance to the notice, respondent - Corporation filed its written statement by denying the contents of the petition. It is contended that the accident has taken place due to fall of the autorickshaw and the driver of autorickshaw all of a sudden took the said autorickshaw towards right side and back portion of the bus touched the autorickshaw and as a result of the same, it turtle. On these grounds, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.
5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed issues and awarded compensation of Rs.3,71,000/- under various heads.
6. By assailing the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the appellants/claimants are before this Court.
7. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the appellants are that the deceased Gowramma was working as an agriculturist as well as coolie and was earning Rs.6,000/- p.m. But the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- p.m and has awarded meager compensation of Rs.3,36,000/- towards `loss of dependency’. He further contended that the compensation awarded under the conventional heads is also on the lower side. Therefore, he prayed for allowing the appeal by enhancing the compensation.
8. Learned counsel appearing for respondent – Corporation by justifying the impugned judgment and award prays for confirming the same. However, she also further submitted that if at all conventional heads has to be increased, this Court has to keep in mind the ultimate interest, which is going to be paid. So the reasonable enhancement may be made keeping in view the year of the accident and the dependency of the dependents/claimants. On these grounds, she prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
9. The accident in question is not in dispute so also the offending vehicle involved in the accident.
10. As could be seen from the judgment and award of the Tribunal, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased, Gowramma at the rate of Rs.3,000/- p.m. and after deducting 1/3rd of the income towards personal expenses of the deceased and applying the multiplier `14’ as the deceased was aged about 45 years and has awarded an amount of Rs.3,36,000/- towards `loss of dependency’. In a normal course, the method adopted by the Tribunal would be justified. However, in the absence of documentary evidence with regard to the income of the deceased, avocation, age, year of accident and daily wage have to be taken. In the instant case, the accident is of the year 2007. During that period, in respect of the daily wage earner, the notional income of Rs.4,000/-
p.m. is the yardstick, which used to be adopted in Lokadalath settlement. If the same is adopted, I think it is just and proper to accept the same. In that light, by adopting the multiplier `14’ and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, the appellants/claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.4,48,056/- (4,000x2/3x12x14) towards `loss of dependency’. In addition to that, the compensation awarded under the conventional heads appears to be on the lower side. In that light, I am of the opinion that if the appellants/claimants are awarded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- under conventional heads, the same is going to be meet the ends of justice. Therefore, the appellants/claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.5,48,056/- since the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.3,71,000/-. After deducting the same, the appellants/claimants are entitled to additional compensation of Rs.1,77,056/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed-in-part and the appellants/claimants are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.1,77,056/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till realization. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.208/2008 is modified as indicated above.
Respondent No.2 – Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the additional compensation awarded by this Court within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment subject to the fact that while depositing the award amount, the respondent – Corporation to keep in mind the order dated 12.6.2013 whereunder while condoning the delay of 373 days in filing the appeal, it has condoned the delay subject to condition that the appellants are not entitled to any interest for the enhanced amount to the said period. The same may be deducted and thereafter deposit the amount.
Registry is directed to draw the award accordingly and send the LCR to the jurisdictional Tribunal.
The release, deposit and disbursement of the enhanced compensation shall be made in terms of the award of the Tribunal.
Sd/- JUDGE bkm.