IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT M.F.A.NO.3470 OF 2013 (MV) BETWEEN:
M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH MANAGER, 1ST FLOOR VV ROAD MANDYA REPTD. BY REGIONAL OFFICE 144, SUBHARAM COMPLEX M.G. ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001 BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER.
(BY SRI.K.N.SRINIVASA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SMT. GEETHAMMA @ GEETHA W/O LATE SHIVARAJU AGED 40 YEARS MALLANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE HONAKERE HOBLI NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT.
2. MR. RAJU S/O CHENNAKRISHNA C/O D. VASU (TEACHER) NO.370, MAIN ROAD KIKKERI, K.R. PET TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT ... APPELLANT (OWNER OF HERO HONDA SPLENDOR, BEARING REG: NO.KA-54/E-3815) ... RESPONDENTS (R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
R2-APPEAL DISMISSED AGAINST R2 V/O DATED 16/03/2018) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.12.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.35/2011 (OLD MVC NO.731/2011), ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, NAGAMANGALA, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF `6,51,500/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DEPOSIT.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This appeal is against the judgment and award dated 26.12.2012 passed in MVC No.35/2011 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Nagamangala.
2. The Insurer is in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claming compensation for the death of the husband of the claimant-Shivaraju. It is stated that on 02.05.2011, when the deceased was walking on K.R. Pet-Nagamangala road, a Hero Honda Splendor bearing No.KA-54/E-3815 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the deceased- Shivaraju. Due to which, Shivaraju fell down and sustained grievous injuries. He was immediately shifted to Primary Health Center, Bhogadi, but the Doctor pronounced him dead. It is stated that the deceased was aged about 50 years and was earning `10,000/- per month by running a petty shop.
3. On issuance of notice, respondent No.2- Insurer appeared and filed objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. Further, it is stated that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the deceased and there was no negligence on the part of the rider of the vehicle. It is also stated that the rider of the motor bike was not holding a valid and effective Driving Licence as on the date of the accident.
4. The claimant examined herself as PW-1 apart from marking Exs.P-1 to P-15. Respondent- Insurance Company got marked Insurance Policy as Ex.R-1.
5. The Tribunal on appreciating the material on record, awarded a total compensation of `6,51,500/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization, on the following heads:
Amount in (Rs.) 1. Loss of dependency 6,24,000 2. Transportation expenses of dead body of deceased 3. Funeral and obsequies ceremony expenses 2,500 10,000 4. Loss of consortium 10,000 5. Loss of estate 5,000 Total 6,51,500 While awarding the above compensation, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased as `6,000/- per month and deducted 1/3rd of the amount towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. The Insurer is in appeal aggrieved by the adoption of 1/3rd deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased instead of adopting deduction at 50%.
6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
Even though Court notice was served, respondent No.1 remained absent.
7. The one and only contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant, is that the Tribunal has committed an error in deducting 1/3rd of the amount towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. It is his submission that since there is only one claimant i.e., wife of the deceased, 50% has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. Since the claim is by only one claimant i.e., wife of the deceased, the Tribunal ought to have taken deduction at 50% towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. Thus, he prays for reduction of compensation awarded in the impugned judgment and award.
8. On hearing learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the material on record, the only point which falls for consideration is as to whether the Tribunal is justified in adopting 1/3rd deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. Answer to the above point is in affirmative for the following reasons.
9. The accident, which occurred on 02.05.2011 involving a motor cycle bearing No.KA-54/E-3815 and the death of Shivaraju is not in dispute in this appeal. The Insurer is in appeal aggrieved by the 1/3rd deduction adopted by the Tribunal towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. Wife is the claimant. The contention of the Insurer is that when only sole claimant is before the Tribunal, 50% of deduction has to be adopted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. But, the same cannot be accepted in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.’ reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104. The Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraph Nos.14 and 15 has held as follows:
“14. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardized deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant family members exceed six.
15. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent/s and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependant on the father. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where family of the bachelor is large and dependant on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non- earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third.”
10. In the instant case, the claimant is the wife of the deceased. Since the deceased was a married person, adoption of 1/3rd deduction towards personal and living expenses by the Tribunal, is correct and proper. There is no merit in the contention raised by the appellant – Insurance Company. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal.
Sd/- JUDGE Mds/-