IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY M.F.A. NO.2090 OF 2015 (MV) BETWEEN:
1. Mothis Pinto S/o Joseph Pinto Aged about 52 years 2. Margarate Pinto W/o Mothis Pinto Aged about 44 years 3. Vinutha Pinto S/o Mothis Pinto Aged about 19 years All are residing at Kadekarje Village, Arehalli Hobli, Belur Taluk, Hassan District-573 201.
... Appellants (By Sri Girish B. Baladare, Advocate) AND:
Managing Director, KSRTC, Bangalore.
Represented by Divisional Controller KSRTC, Chikkmagalur Division, Chikkmagalur-573 201.
…Respondent (By Sri G. Shankar Goud, Advocate) This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act against the judgment and award dated 19.09.2014 passed in MVC No.1899/2013 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, MACT, Belur, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
This MFA coming on for Admission this day, the court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T The appellants are parents and brother of the deceased. The deceased met with an accident on 23.07.2013 and succumbed to injuries. The appellants filed claim petition in M.V.C.No.1899/2013 seeking compensation on account of death of the deceased Vivina Pinto. The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.5,16,000/-. Aggrieved by the same the appellants have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants submits the actual income of the deceased was Rs.6,000/- as she was a student completed PUC and working as a agricultural coolie. But the Tribunal disbelieved the same has taken income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- p.m. The deceased was aged 21 years at the time of accident. Hence, sought to enhance the compensation.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Tribunal has awarded just compensation and there is no scope for enhancement. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
5. The date and occurrence of the accident are not in dispute. The only dispute is with regard to assessing the income of the deceased by the Tribunal at Rs.4,500/- only. The occupation of the deceased is not proved. In the absence of the same and in the circumstances, as the claimants themselves have stated that her income was Rs.6,000/-, I am inclined to assess the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month considering the age, year of accident, number of dependents and occupation of the deceased. As the dependents are parents and brother of the deceased, 1/3rd is to be deducted towards personal expenses. The appellants are entitled for a sum of Rs.8,64,000/- (Rs.6,000 x 2/3 x 12 x 18) towards loss of dependency.
A sum of Rs.40,000/- is awarded towards conventional head. In all, the appellants-claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.9,04,000/-. Hence, the appellants-claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.3,88,000/- apart from the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
6. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The appellants-claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.3,88,000/- in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall carry interest.
Release the compensation as per the award of the Tribunal.
ap* Sd/- JUDGE