IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1886 OF 2018(MV-D) Between:
1. Smt. Nagarathna W/o Late Kumar, Aged about 33 years, 2. Chi.Sumanth M.K., S/o late Kumar, Aged about 12 years, 3. Kusuma D/o Late Kumar, Aged about 10 years, Appellants 2 and 3 are Minors represented by Natural Guardian mother 1st appellant Smt. Nagarathna.
4. Rangappa S/o late Ranganna, Aged about 66 years, 5. Smt.Manjamma W/o Rangappa, Aged about 61 years, All are R/o Kariyappa Badavani, Lingenahalli, Madhugiri Town-572132. (By Sri.T.Sathisha Advocate) And:
1. Manjunatha S S/o Siddappa P, Aged about 41 years, R/o Sapthagiri Extension, Sira, Tumakuru District-572101.
2. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., No.1 and 2, 1st Floor, Maganur Commercial Complex, Near by KSRTC Bus stand, B.D.Road, Chitradurga.
Now Rep. by Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office, East Wing N0-28, Centenary Building, M.G.Road, …Appellants Bangalore-560001. …Respondents (By Sri.H.C.Betsur, Advocate for R2; notice To R1 is dispensed with v.o.d.06.06.2019) This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and award dated 06.01.2018 passed in MVC No.483/2017 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT-XIII, Madhugiri, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
This MFA coming for admission, this day, the Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed by the claimant against the impugned judgment and award dated 06th January, 2018 passed by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge & MACT XIII at Madhugiri in MVC No.483 of 2017 whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.12,22,000/- together with interest at 9% per annum in favour of the appellants.
2. The undisputed fact of the case is that, 1st appellant is the wife of late Kumar who died in the fatal accident that took place on 05.04.2017. Appellant Nos.2 and 3 are the minor children of appellant No.1 and late Kumar. Appellant Nos. 4 and 5 are the parents of the said late Kumar.
3. Both the learned counsel submit that there is no dispute with regard to the occurrence of the accident as well as coverage of the vehicle in question by respondent No.2-Insurance Company. It is also submitted that the present appeal is restricted to enhancement of compensation awarded in favour of the appellants.
4. The Court below came to the conclusion that the appellants are entitled to a sum of Rs.12,22,000/- under the following heads:
1 Loss of dependency Rs.11,52,000.00 2 Loss of consortium Rs.40,000.00 3 Loss of estate Rs.15,000.00 4 Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000.00 Total Rs.12,22,000.00 5. While quantifying the loss of dependency, the Court below took the monthly notional income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/- and applied a multiplier as 16 since the deceased was aged about 34 years and the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.11,52,000/- under the head Loss of dependency. Insofar as the head of loss of consortium is concerned, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. In arriving at the aforesaid compensation, the Tribunal placed reliance of judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of i) Sarala Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another in 2009 SAR (CIVIL) 592, ii) National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and others in (CIVIL) No.25590 of 2014 iii) Supe Dei Vs. National Insurance Co.Ltd., in (2009) 4 SCC 513.
6. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the aforesaid materials on record.
7. Learned counsel for Appellants submitted that the Court below committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the notional income of the deceased has to be taken as Rs.8,000/- per month. In this context, he invited my attention to Lok-adalath guidelines which stipulate that notional income of a person in respect of an accident that occurred in the year 2017 will have to be taken as Rs.11,000/- per month and not Rs.8,000/- per month as wrongly held by the Tribunal. It is also contended that having regard to the Law in respect of payment of compensation under the head loss of consortium is concerned, a sum of Rs.40,000/- awarded by the Court below was highly inadequate, in the light of law laid down in the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. vs. NANU RAM reported in 2018 SCC ONLINE SC 1546 which was followed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt.Ponmozhi Vs. A.Srinivasan and another in M.F.A.No.8705/2013 which was disposed of on 18.07.2019. It is further contended that the compensation awarded in respect of these heads requires enhancement by this Court.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2-Insurance Company would support the impugned order.
9. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and have perused the material on record.
As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, the Tribunal committed an error in taking the notional income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/- per month. As per the Lok-adalath guidelines, in the absence of proof of income, the notional income would have to be taken as Rs.11,000/- in respect of accident that occurred in the year 2017. It is not in dispute that the accident in question occurred in the year 2017 and consequently, the notional income would have to be taken as Rs.11,000/-. Accordingly, the loss of dependency will have to be worked out as hereunder:
11,000+40%=15,400X12=1,84,800/¼=46,200-
1,84,800=1,38,600X16=22,17,600/-.
Thus, the appellants would be entitled for additional compensation of Rs.10,65,600/- towards Loss of dependency.
10. Insofar as the compensation awarded towards loss of consortium is concerned, the Tribunal clearly committed an error in awarding compensation only to the Widow/Appellant No.1. In this context, the Tribunal failed to award compensation towards loss of consortium in faovur of Appellant Nos.2 and 3 who were children of the deceased and in favour of Appellant Nos.4 and 5 who were undisputedly, the parents of the deceased. In the light of the Law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Magmas case and Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ponmozhi, the Appellants 2 and 3 being minor children of the deceased would be entitled to additional compensation in a sum of Rs.30,000/- each (Rs.30,000X2=Rs.60,000/-) towards loss of consortium for the children of the deceased. Accordingly, the Appellants are entitled to additional compensation of Rs.60,000/- under this head. Further in view of the additional fact that appellants 4 and 5 are the parents of the deceased, both of them would be entitled to Rs.30,000/- each (Rs.30,000X2=Rs.60,000/-) towards loss of filial consortium. Thus, appellants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- towards loss of loss of consortium for the minor children and parents of the deceased.
10. Accordingly, the appellants would be entitled to additional compensation as follows.
1 Loss of dependency Rs.10,65,600.00 2 Loss of consortium Rs.1,20,000.00 Total Rs.11,85,600.00 order:
11. Hence, I proceed to pass the following i) Appeal is partly allowed.
ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 06th January 2018 passed in MVC No.483/2017 on the file of the Addl. Senior Civil Judge & MACT XIII at Madhugiri is hereby modified.
iii) Appellants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.11,85,600/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of filing of claim petition till realization.
iv) Apportionment to be done as per the direction issued by the Tribunal.
Sd/- JUDGE JS/-