IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JULY 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO M.F.A.No.2928/2010 (MV) BETWEEN NOOKOWLAMMA W/O LATE SURAPPA @ SURYANARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS COOLIE WORK R/O KARIGANURU CAMP CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
(BY SRI R SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE) AND 1. CHIKKANNA S/O MAYANNA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS DRIVER OF VENKATESHWARA BUS BEARING No.KA-19/C-8288 R/O MALLIKARJUNA BADAVANE GOPANALA, SHIMOGGA.
2. KATTE MANJUNATHA S/O KATTE BHASKAR RAO AGE MAJOR, OWNER VENKATESHWARA BUS BEARING No.KA-19/C-8288 R/O AZAAD ROAD, THIRTHAHALLI.
3. THE MANAGER THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD, BRANCH OFFICE, 1ST STAIR …APPELLANT THILUVALLI COMPLEX, P.B.ROAD DAVANAGERE.
(NOTICE TO R1 & R2 DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 18.9.2013.
SRI A M VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3) …RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:01.01.2010 PASSED IN MVC No.847/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE(SR.DN) AND MACT-IV, DAVANAGERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 01.01.2010 passed in MVC No.847/2008 by the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) and MACT-IV, Davanagere.
2. On 27.8.2008 at about 8.15 p.m. when Surappa @ Suryanarayana Reddy was going on his bicycle near Kariganur cross, the bus bearing Reg.No.KA.19.8288 was driven in a rash and negligent way and Surapppa was hit from the backside and sustained serious injuries because of the hit and fell and succumbed to the injuries. The appellant seeks compensation but also says that Rs.10,000/- was spent by her to obsequies.
3. It is necessary to clarify that before the Tribunal, the appellant herein also was accompanied by claimants 2 to 6 who are offsprings of appellant and one Surappa @ Suryanarayana Reddy.
4. The learned counsel for appellant Sri. R. Shashidhara would submit that the offsprings were held to be non dependants on Surappa @ Suryanarayana Reddy by the learned MACT. Hence, they are not joined the appellant and also were not made formal respondents in this appeal.
5. Respondent No.3, Insurance Company denied the claim and also contended that the terms of the policy were violated and other respondents did not participate in the proceedings and they were set exparte.
6. The Tribunal examined and considered the matter on the accident, negligence, cause of death, entitlement for compensation and other relevant factors basing on the oral evidence of PW1-Nowkalamma and documentary evidence at Exs.P1 to P11.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the compensation awarded is very much on the lower side. Regard being had to the fact that granting compensation under eligible heads are either deprived or considered less.
8. Learned counsel for 3rd respondent Sri.
A.M.Venkatesh, submitted that the compensation now granted has been on the higher side. The appellant was entitled for the compensation on considering the age of Surappa @ Suryanarayana Reddy and ‘11’ multiplier was applied despite the applicable multiplier is ‘9’.
9. On perusal of the grant of compensation arrived, the learned Member has considered the notional monthly income of Rs.3,000/- as against the claim of Rs.5,000/- and considering his marital status, 1/3rd is considered for personal and living expenses. That the multiplier applied by learned Member is ‘11’ whereas the recognized and reasonable multiplier for the age group of beyond 55 years and below 60 years is ‘9’. The learned member has not assigned reasons for considering the multiplier or to take deviation from the recognized principles. At the same time, the Tribunal also forgets the concept of the future prospects though Surappa @ Suryanarayana Reddy was aged 57 at the time of death. The dependants are entitled to future prospects and in which event, basically an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month definitely appears to be on the lower side. The learned Member also ought to have thought in considering the inflated prices of necessities and medicines. In the circumstances, in my considered opinion, it ought to have been Rs.4,000/- per month and to be increased by Rs.600/- considering future prospects at 15%. It is also seen that the multiplier considered by the learned Member also will have to be set right though the appeal is preferred by the claimant as paramount consideration is ‘just compensation’.
10. It is made clear that other dependants of the family of Surappa @ Suryanarayana Reddy cannot retain separate cause of action over the death.
11. The eligibility for compensation is adjudicated in this appeal. Regard being had to the fact that the other family members who were the claimants in the Tribunal.
12. Now in the context of circumstances, the compensation of Rs.2,74,000/- is apparently on the lower side and the just and reasonable compensation arising out of the death of Surappa @ Suryanarayana Reddy shall be as under:
Notional income per month : Rs.4,000/- Add: 15% towards future prospects : Rs. 600/-
Total : Rs.4,600/-
Less: 1/3rd towards personal : Rs.1,533/- and living expenses : Rs. 3,067/-
Loss of dependency : Rs.3,067 x 12 x 9 = 3,31,236/-
13. However, the grant of compensation under other heads do not require interference to enhance the compensation. Thus, the appellant is entitled for the compensation as under:
Loss of dependency `3,31,236/-
Loss of love and affection ` 05,000/-
Funeral expenses ` 05,000/- Total ` 3,41,236/-
14. In the result, the appeal deserves to be allowed in part.
Judgment and award dated 01.01.2010 passed in MVC No.847/2008 by the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) and MACT-IV, Davanagere, is hereby set aside and modified by enhancing the compensation of Rs.2,74,000/- to Rs.3,41,236/- thereby granting additional compensation of Rs.67,236/-.
The entire compensation shall carry interest @t 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its deposit.
The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation including the enhanced compensation of Rs.67,236/- with interest before the jurisdictional Tribunal within an outer limit of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.
The respondent insurance company shall be entitled for set off.
No Costs.
Sd/- JUDGE tsn*