IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR M.F.A.NO.6824 OF 2017(MV-D) BETWEEN 1. SMT. NAGARATHNA N. B. @ NAGARATHNAMMA. N W/O. LATE NAGARAJU. H, NOW AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, 2 . RAHUL. A. N.
S/O. LATE NAGARAJU. H, NOW AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS, 3 . HARSHINI. N.
D/O. LATE NAGARAJU. H, NOW AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS 2ND & 3RD MINOR APPELLANTS ARE REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN/THEIR MOTHER, 1ST APPELLANT HEREIN ALL ARE RESIDING AT AMRUTHAGIRI VILLAGE, BELADHARA POST, KORA HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT.
...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. GOPAL KRISHNA N, ADVOCATE) AND 1 . SRI. AMEERKHAN S/O. HAYATH SAB, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 86E, BANAVARA HULIYAR ROAD, ARASIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT, PIN-573 103.
2 . SRI. NARAYANAPPA S/O. HANUMANAIK, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, ARAKERE VILLAGE AND POST, JAVAGAL HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT, PIN-573 103.
3 . SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, NO.5, 3RD FLOOR, MONARCH CHAMBERS, OPP: INFANTRY WEDDING HALL, INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001, REP. BY ITS MANAGER.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.C.SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R3; R1 & R2-NOTICE D/W) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 08.11.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO. 1127/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MACT, TUMKUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This appeal has been filed by the appellants-claimants aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award dated 08.11.2016 passed by the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge and MACT, Tumakuru in MVC.No.1127/2014 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’ for short) whereby the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation in a sum of Rs.27,54,200/- in favour of the appellant together with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization on account of death of Sri Nagaraju.H who died in the road fatal accident that occurred on 25.04.2014.
2. Though the matter is listed for orders, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
3. Both the counsels submit that the occurrence of accident as well as the coverage of the policy of the offending vehicle by the Insurance Company is not in dispute and this appeal is restricted to quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
4. By the impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.27,54,200/- in favour of the appellants-claimants as hereunder:
Towards loss of love and affection Rs. 30,000/-
Total Rs. 27,54,200/-
5. The learned counsel for the appellants-claimants submits that the Tribunal having come to the conclusion that the deceased Nagaraju.H. was working as Conductor in KSRTC committed an error in not adding 50% towards ‘Future prospects’ as held by Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited V. Pranay Sethi and Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. It is therefore contended that by adding 50% towards ‘future prospects’, the appellants-claimants would be entitled to enhanced compensation under the head ‘loss of dependency’.
6. It is also contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under conventional heads is inadequate and meager and not in accordance with the law laid down by Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd. V. Nanu Ram reported in 2018 SCC online SC 1546, followed by this Court in MFA No. 1100/2019 c/w. MFA No.663/2019 dated 12.07.2019 and in MFA No.879/2014 dated 27.08.2019.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent- Insurance company would support the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
8. I have given my careful consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
9. A perusal of the impugned judgment and award would indicate that the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the deceased Nagaraju.H was working as Conductor in KSRTC and his salary was Rs.16,211/- p.m. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellants-
claimants, the Tribunal committed an error in not applying the law laid down by Apex Court in Pranay Sethi’s case stated supra to the effect that in so far as future prospects is concerned for a person with permanent job, 50% has to be added since he was aged about 32 years as on the date of the accident. Thus, by adding 50%, to the monthly income of the deceased i.e. Rs.16,211, the income for the purpose of assessing ‘loss of dependency’ is Rs.24,016/-. Deducting one-third from the said amount towards personal expenses since the appellants-claimants are three in number, the ‘loss of dependency’ comes to Rs.30,74,112/- as hereunder:
16,011x12x16= Rs.30,74,112/-
10. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants, the compensation awarded under conventional heads is highly inadequate and meager and Appellants are entitled to enhanced compensation as per the decision of Apex Court in the case of Magma United Insurance Co., and the decision of the Division Bench of this Court stated supra. Thus, the appellants-claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.32,34,112/- as hereunder:
1 Loss of dependency Rs. 30,74,112/-
2 Loss of Consortium Rs. 1,00,000/-
3 Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/-
4 Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/-
Total Rs. 32,04,112/-
The Tribunal having awarded a sum of Rs.27,54,200/-, the appellants-claimants would be entitled to additional sum of Rs.4,49,912/- which is rounded of to Rs.4,50,000/- (32,04,112/- - 27,54,200/-) by way of additional enhanced compensation together with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the realization.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I pass the following:-
ORDER (i) The appeal is partly allowed.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 08.11.2016 passed by the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge and MACT, Tumakuru in MVC.No.1127/2014 is hereby modified.
(iii) The appellants-claimants are entitled to additional compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- which shall carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization.
(iv) The apportionment and disbursement to be done as per the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
SSD Sd/- JUDGE