IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2332/2015 (MV) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2292/2015 (MV) IN MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2332/2015 Between:
The Managing Director (MD), K.S.R.T.C., Central Offices, Shanthinagar, K. H. Road, Bangalore- 560 027. Represented by its Chief Law Officer.
(By Sri. F. S. Dabali, Advocate) And:
1. Smt. Puttamma, W/o Late Sangaiah, Aged about 30 years, 2. Master Nagaraju, S/o Late Sangaiah, Aged about 13 years, ... Appellant 3. Kum. Varalakshmi, D/o Late Sangaiah, Aged about 11 years, Since respondents No.2 and 3 Are minors, Rep. by their Mother and Natural Guardian Smt. Puttamma, Respondent No.1.
4. Smt. Narasamma, W/o Late Venkatappa, Aged about 61 years, All the respondents No.1 to 4 Are residing at Manchaladore, Gubbi Taluk, Hagalavadi Hobli, Tumkur District- 572 216.
(By Sri. Shivakumar. P., Advocate) …Respondents This MFA is filed u/s 173(1) of MV Act against the Judgment and Award dated 30.12. 2014 passed in MVC No.1599/2014 on the file of the 18th Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-4, Bengaluru awarding a compensation of Rs.13,46,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
IN MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2292/2015 Between:
1. Smt. Puttamma, W/o Late Sangaiah, Aged about 30 years, 2. Master Nagaraju, S/o Late Sangaiah, Aged about 13 years, 3. Kum. Varalakshmi, D/o Late Sangaiah, Aged about 11 years, Since Appellants 2 and 3 Are minors, they are Represented by their Mother/ Natural Guardian Smt. Puttamma, The First Appellant herein.
4. Smt. Narasamma, W/o Late Venkatappa, Aged about 61 years, All R/at Manchaladore, Hagalavadi Hobli, Gubbi Taluk, Tumkur District.
(By Sri. Shivakumar. P., Advocate) And:
… Appellants The Managing Director, K.S.R.T.C., Shanthinagar, Bangalore- 560 027 ... Respondent (By Sri. F. S. Dabali, Advocate) This MFA is filed u/s 173(1) of MV Act against the Judgment and Award dated 30.12. 2014 passed in MVC No.1599/2014 on the file of the 18th Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes & Member, MACT-4, Bengaluru allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
These appeals coming up for Admission this day, the court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT Sri F. S. Dabali, learned standing Counsel is directed to take notice for Respondent in M.F.A.No.2292/2015.
2. The Appeal in M.F.A.No.2332/2015 is by the Appellant/Corporation challenging the Judgment and Award dated 30.12. 2014 passed in MVC No.1599/2014 on the file of the 18th Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes & Member, MACT-4, Bengaluru awarding a compensation of Rs.13,46,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., on the ground of liability and quantum.
3. The Appeal in M.F.A.No.2292/2015 is by the Claimant/Appellants against the judgment and award dated 30.12. 2014 passed in MVC No.1599/2014 on the file of the 18th Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes & Member, MACT-4, Bengaluru allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
4. The appeal by the Appellant/Corporation challenging the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal on the ground of liability and quantum. The ground urged by the Corporation is with regard to future prospects, the Tribunal has taken 50% of future prospects by assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- p.m. it is on higher side. In support of the employment of the deceased, the claimants have not produced any documents. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal should not have awarded the compensation by taking 50% of future prospects.
5. In the Appeal by the claimants for enhancement of compensation, it is contended that the income assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side, but it should have been assessed at Rs.10,000/- p.m.
6. The income has not been proved by either of the parties. With regard to future prospects as canvassed by the Appellant/Corporation, its liability to be considered as per the judgment referred by the Tribunal while awarding the compensation by taking future prospects. The claimants should have proved the stable employment of the deceased or his stable income. Except stating that he was having stable income, nothing has been produced. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal should have rejected the case of the claimants for assessing the 50% of future prospects for the purpose of awarding compensation under the head of loss of dependency.
7. In the appeal filed by the claimants seeking enhancement, the claimants have stated that the income should have been taken at higher rate, but no proof of documents are produced in that regard. Unless, the claimants prove stable employment of the deceased or his stable income or his self-employment for the purpose of assessing income of the deceased, the claimants are not entitled for any compensation under the head future prospects.
8. Be that as it may, this Court consistently assesses the income by taking reliance on the year of accident 2014, age of the deceased and size of the family members at Rs.9,000/- p.m. Secondly, the deduction should have been 1/4th of the income towards his personal expenses. Therefore, the calculation of loss of dependency would be Rs.12,96,000/- (9000-1/4 = 6750) (6750 x 12 x 16).
Thus, the same is awarded under the head of loss of dependency. A sum of Rs.70,000/- is awarded under conventional heads. In total, the claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.13,66,000/- as against Rs.13,46,000/-.
Accordingly, the appeal in M.F.A.No.2292/2015 filed by the claimants is allowed in part. The claimants are entitled for an enhanced compensation of Rs.13,66,000/- as against Rs.13,46,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest at 6% p.a. Accordingly, the Judgment and award passed by the Tribunal stands modified.
Accordingly both the Appeals stand disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE DL