IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.6528 OF 2014 [MV] C/W MFA.CROB No.155/2014 MFA No.6528/2014:
BETWEEN The National Insurance Company Ltd., represented By Authorised Signatory at Regional office, No.144 Shubharam Complex M G Road, 2nd Floor Bangalore-560 001. ... Appellant [By Sri S Srishaila, Advocate] AND 1. Vinod Sada S H s/o late Singeshwar Sada aged about 50 years.
2. Smt.Phool Devi A Full Devi, w/o Vinod Sada Aged about 44 years.
Both are r/a #248 Piranagara Village and Post Anchal – Veldaur Taluk Kangaria Dist. Bihar State.
3. P Swamy s/o late Puttegowda No.41, Someshwara Nilaya, I Main Huchappa Layout, S V G Nagar Vijayanagar, Bangalore-560072. ... Respondents [By Sri C Puttaswamy, Advocate for caveator/R1 & R2, R3 - served) This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act against the judgment and award dated 19.6.2014 passed in MVC No.5603/2013 on the file of the XIX Additional Small Cause Judge, MACT & XLI ACMM, Bangalore, awarding compensation of Rs.8,45,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.
MFA.CROB No.155/2014 BETWEEN 1. Sri Vinod Sada s/o late Sigeshwar Sada Aged about 51 years.
2. Smt.Phool Devi @ Full Devi w/o Vinod Sada aged about 45 years.
Both are r/a No.248 Piranagara village & post Anchal – Veldaur Taluk Khagaria District, Bihar State. ... Cross-objectors [By Sri C Puttaswamy, Advocate] AND 1. Sri P Swamy s/o late Puttegowda No.41, `Someshwara Nilaya’, 1st Main Huchappa Layout, S V G Nagar Vijayanagar, Bangalore-560072.
2. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office, No.144 Subharam Complex M G Road, Bangalore-560001 (Represented by its Manager). .. Respondents [By Sri S Srishaila, Advocate for R2) This MFA.CROB in MFA No.6528/2014 is filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC against the judgment and award dated 19.6.2014 passed in MVC No.5603/2013 on the file of the XIX Additional Small Cause Judge, MACT & XLI ACMM, Bangalore, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation .
MFA and MFA.CROB coming on for admission this day, the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT Though these matters are listed for admission, the same are taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned counsel appearing on both sides.
2. MFA No.6528/2014 is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the quantum of compensation and MFA.CROB.No.155/2014 is filed by the claimants in MVC No. 5603/2013 seeking enhancement of compensation.
3. I have heard the learned counsel on both sides.
4. The claimants are the parents of the deceased viz: Manoj Sada. It is their case that on 28.4.2013 at about 8.30 a.m, when the deceased, Manoj Sada and Ramashankar were proceeding by walk at Somanahalli Industrial Area, near Vajra Granites Factory, Maddur Taluk, Mandaya District, at that time, a lorry bearing Regn. No.KA-11/B-3105 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against them from back. Due to the said impact, both the persons sustained injuries and taken to hospital. The deceased, Manoj Sada, was referred to Mandya Hospital and from there, he was shifted to Victoria Hospital, Bangalore. However, he succumbed to the injuries in the hospital on the said date at 5.00 p.m.
5. It is the further case of the claimants that the deceased was working under different employers at Somanahalli Industrial Area, Maddur and having an income of Rs.9,000/- p.m. and he was a bachelor aged 22 years.
6. Before the Tribunal, claim petition was filed claiming a total compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for the death of Manoj Sada. Two witnesses were examined on behalf of the claimants as PWs.1 and 2 and Ex.P1 to P13 were marked as documents. Though the claim petition was opposed by the respondents, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked.
7. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record awarded a total compensation of Rs.8,45,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company in MFA No.6528/2014 would contend that the Tribunal was not proper in taking the multiplier 18, considering the age of the deceased, on the otherhand, the Tribunal ought to have taken the multiplier on the basis of the age of the younger parents of the deceased. Therefore, he submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of dependency and the total compensation awarded is on the higher side. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal 9. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants/cross- objectors would contend that the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- p.m. though the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.9,000/- p.m. by doing coolie work under different persons. He would submit that the multiplier adopted is proper and there is no illegality committed by the Tribunal. He would further submit that the total compensation awarded under the conventional heads are also on the lower side. Hence, he seeks enhancement of compensation by modifying the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
10. The accident in question and involvement of offending lorry bearing Regn. No.KA-11/B-3105 and the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry in question as well as the said lorry being insured are not in dispute. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company is that the deceased was having income of Rs.9,000/- p.m. However, except the oral evidence, there is no other satisfactory evidence adduced before the Tribunal to hold that the deceased was having income of Rs.9,000/- p.m. The Tribunal has taken the income at Rs.5,000/- p.m, however, considering that the accident is of the year 2013, I deem it appropriate to take the notional income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- p.m.
11. The deceased was a bachelor aged 22 years.
According to the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, the proper multiplier applicable in the case of death of a bachelor shall be on the basis of the age of the younger parent of the deceased. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Munnalal Jain and another –vs- Vipin Kumar Sharma and others reported in (2015) 6 SCC 347 has held that while choosing the multiplier in the case of death of a bachelor, age of the deceased shall be taken into consideration. In view of the settled position of law, the contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company cannot be accepted. Hence, the multiplier is used with reference to the age of the deceased.
12. The age of the deceased in the present case is 22 years and therefore the appropriate multiplier is 18 as rightly taken by the Tribunal.
13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hemraj – vs- Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd. reported in 2018 ACJ 5 has held that there cannot be distinction where there is positive evidence of income and where minimum income is determined on guess work in the facts and circumstances of a case for considering additional income towards future prospects. Both the situations stand at the same footing.
14. In view of the above decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, I am of the view that the deceased being aged 22 years, an addition of 40 per cent to the income should be added towards future prospects. Further deducting 50% towards personal expenses, the total compensation towards loss of dependency shall be Rs.12,09,600/- (5,600 x 12 x 18). Claimants are entitled for an additional sum of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of estate, funeral and transportation expenses. The compensation awarded towards loss of love and affection is enhanced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.40,000/-. In all the claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.12,79,000/-. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER MFA No.6528/2014 filed by the Insurance Company is hereby dismissed.
MFA.CROB.No.155/2014 filed by the claimants is allowed in part.
Claimants in MVC 5603/2013 are entitled for total compensation of Rs.12,79,000/- as against Rs.8,45,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.
The Insurance Company shall deposit the entire amount within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal.
Sd/- JUDGE Bkm.