IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. L. NARAYANA SWAMY ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MFA NO.3761 OF 2010 (MV) BETWEEN:
1. SMT. NETHRAVATHI W/O LATE MAHESHA AGED 27 YEARS 2. KUM. SANJU D/O LATE MAHESHA AGED 5 YEARS 2ND APPELLANT BEING MINOR REP. BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT. NETHRAVATHI 3. SMT. SAVITHRAMMA W/O LATE RAJEGOWDA AGED 52 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT ALLAPATNA VILLAGE MALLIPATNA HOBLI ARKALGUD TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT.
... APPELLANTS (BY SRI A.M. BALAJI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SMT. PARVATHAMMA W/O CHANNAMALLAPPA R/AT MUTTHIGE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, ARKALGUD TALUK HASSAN (OWNER OF THE TRACTOR AND TRAILER BEARING REG.NO.KA-06 T-7758 AND 7759) 2. THE BAJAJ ALLIANS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED NO.363, SRI HARI COMPLEX SETHA VILAS ROAD, MYSORE. REP. BY ADVOCATE SRI B.S. LAKSHMAN MYSORE POLICY NO.OG/08/9995/1811/00006307 VALID FROM 05.04.2008 TO 04.04.2009 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI GIRISH B. BALADARE, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI A.N. KRISHNASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R2) ---
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.08.2009 PASSED IN MVC NO.525/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) AND JMFC, MACT, ARKALGUD, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The claim petition filed by the claimants was allowed and the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.4,12,000/- by fastening the liability on the owner on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid license.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited ([2017] 14 SCC 663), it is held that there is no requirement to obtain separate endorsement to drive a transport vehicle as long as unladen weight of the vehicle remains the same.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and no ground is made out for interference. Hence, the appeal may be dismissed.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the papers made available.
5. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan (supra), liability has to be fastened on the respondent – Insurance company on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle was having license to drive the LMV which is sufficient to drive the transport vehicle. Accordingly, direction is issued to the respondent – Insurance company to pay compensation and satisfy the award.
6. With regard to the income of the appellant, the Tribunal has taken the same at Rs.3,000/-, which is on the lower side and the same needs to be modified. Hence, the income of the appellant is taken at Rs.4,500/-. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS ([2017] 16 SCC 680) has held that if the age of the deceased was below 40 years, an addition of 40% of the income should be taken for calculating the future prospects. If the same is applied to this case, it would be Rs.1800/- (4500x40%) and if Rs.1,800/- is added to Rs.4,500/-, the monthly income would be Rs.6,300/-. If 1/3rd is deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased and if 17 multiplier is applied, then the loss of dependency works out to Rs.8,56,800/- (6300x12x2/3x17). In addition to this, Rs.70,000/- is awarded under the conventional heads. Therefore, the total compensation works out to Rs.9,26,800/-.
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified. The appellants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.5,14,800/- (9,26,800-4,12,000), which shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a.
The amount in deposit, if any, is directed to be transferred to the MACT.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ca