IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. SREENIVASE GOWDA MFA No.8210/2014 (MV) BETWEEN:
1. MUNIYADEVI MAJHI, W/O. BIRENDAR MANJHI, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS.
2. MANISHA KUMARI, D/O. BIRENDAR MAJI, AGED ABOUT 08 YEARS, SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER SMT.MUNIYADEVI MAJHI.
3. RAJIADEVI MAJHI, W/O. SUKAN MAJHI, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.
ALL THE APPELLANTS 1 TO 3 ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE – BISUNPUR (VISHANPUR SUBA) ANCHAL – SAKARA, MUZAFFARPUR DISTRICT-843 105, BIHAR STATE, INDIA.
(BY SRI.A.S.AMRUTHESH, ADV.) AND:
1. M/S.SOMA ENTERPRISE LTD., PROJECT OFFICE: NO.15, III CROSS, MUNISWAMAPPA LAYOUT, ... APPELLANTS BOMMANAHALLI, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 068, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICER – 12, JAYALAKSHMI MANSIONS, 2ND FLOOR, 1001/56, DR.RAJKUMAR ROAD, 4TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 010.
(BY SRI.C.R.RAVISHANKAR, ADV. FOR R2 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) ... RESPONDENTS THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:30.10.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.6553/2009 ON THE FILE FO THE XXI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MEMBER, ACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
J U D G M E N T This appeal is by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
2. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the appeal is heard and disposed of finally. Perused the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Tribunal.
4. As there is no dispute regarding death of one Birendar Majhi in a road traffic accident occurred on 11.07.2009 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry bearing registration No.KA-51-5269 by its driver and liability of the insurer of the offending vehicle, the only point that arises for my consideration in the appeal is:
“Whether quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for enhancement?”
5. It is a case of death of one Birendar Majhi aged about 28 years at the time accident. The claim petition was filed by wife, minor child, mother, brothers and sisters of the deceased. The claimants in support of their contention that deceased by working as a Mason was earning Rs.6,000/- per month have examined claimant No.1, wife of the deceased as PW.1 and one Ashraf Alee under whom deceased alleged to have been working as PW.2. The Tribunal relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month.
6. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the Tribunal has committed an error in not adding portion of Rs.6,000/- to the income of the deceased towards ‘future prospects’. Considering an inordinate delay in filing the appeal, this is not a fit case for adding portion of wages to the income of deceased towards ‘future prospect’.
Whereas, learned counsel for the insurer submits that only claimant Nos.1, 2 and 3 are the dependant claimants and others being brothers and sisters of the deceased, are not dependant claimants. The Tribunal without considering the same has committed an error in deducting 1/5th of the income of deceased towards ‘personal expenses’ and taking 4/5th of his income as his contribution towards his family. There is some force in the submission of the learned counsel for the insurer.
7. Though wife, minor child, mother, brothers and sisters of the deceased had filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, but the appeal was restricted to wife, minor child and mother of the deceased. If that is so, 1/3rd of the income of the deceased is to be deducted towards his ‘personal expenses’ and 2/3rd of the income of the deceased has to be taken as his contribution to his family. The multiplier of ‘17’ applied by the Tribunal based on the age of the deceased is just and proper. If that is so, ‘loss of dependency’ works out to Rs.8,16,000/- (Rs.6,000/- x 12 x 17 x 2/3) as against Rs.9,79,200/- awarded by the Tribunal. An excess of Rs.1,63,000/- (9,79,200 – 8,16,000) awarded by the Tribunal under this head would meet grievance of the claimants that no compensation is awarded towards ‘future prospects’.
8. In addition to that, a sum of Rs.40,000/- is awarded towards ‘loss of consortium’ in respect of first claimant, Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards ‘loss of estate’ of claimant Nos.2 and 3 and Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards ‘transportation of dead body and funeral expenses’. In all, a sum of Rs.70,000/- is awarded towards ‘conventional heads’.
9. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is re-assessed as under :-
10. As the compensation of Rs.10,19,200/- awarded by the Tribunal is found to be higher than the amount of compensation determined hereinabove, there is no scope for enhancement.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as devoid of merits.
No order as to costs.
Sd/- JUDGE VM