IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT M.F.A.No.4944/2013 (MV) BETWEEN:
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., INDIA MUTUAL BUILDING 1ST FLOOR, NO.221 CUBBONPET MAIN ROAD N R SQUARE, BANGALORE THROUGH ITS BANGALORE REGIONAL OFFICE NO.44/45, RESIDENCY ROAD BANGALORE- 25 REP. BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER.
(BY SRI.S V HEGDE MULKHAND, ADV.) AND:
1. SMT. NAGAMMA W/O LATE SEETHARAMAIAH PATIL AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 2. SRI TIPPANNA S/O LATE SEETHARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS 3. SRI MUNIRAJU S/O LATE SEETHARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS ...APPELLANT ALL ARE R/O NO.452 BANNERUGHATTA KAVAL ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT 4. SMT. ANURADHA W/O M SRINIVASA MAJOR IN AGE NO.1, 3RD CROSS ROAD K R PURAM NEW EXTENSION BANGALORE.
(BY SRI.H B SOMAPUR, ADV. FOR R2 R1 & R3 – SERVED & UNREPRESENTED …RESPONDENTS R4 – APPEAL AGAINST R4 DISMISSED V/O DT: 04.08.2015) THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.03.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.7247/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, XIX A.C.M.M., MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.5,37,011/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL PAYMENT.
THIS M.F.A COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T The insurer is in appeal aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 08.03.2013 passed in MVC No.7247/2010 on the file of XXI Additional Small Causes Judge & XIX A.C.M.M, Court of Small Causes, Member, Bangalore, on the ground that excess compensation has been awarded.
2. The claimants are wife and children of the deceased. [The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the accidental death of one Seetharamaiah in a road Traffic Accident. It is stated that on 20.09.2010 when the deceased was crossing Bannerghatta Jigani Main Road, at that time, the Tempo Traveller bearing Regn.No.KA-04-A-5688 came in high speed, rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased Seetharamaiah, as a result the deceased fell down and sustained multiple injuries all over the body. Immediately, he was shifted to Victoria Hospital, wherein he succumbed to the injuries.] The Tribunal appreciating the material on record awarded total compensation of Rs.5,37,011/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization on the following heads :-
While awarding the above compensation the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month and added 30% of the assessed income towards future prospects and deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased. The Insurer is before this Court in this appeal praying for reduction of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant – Insurer and the learned counsel for the respondents - claimants. Perused the entire material on record.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant - Insurer would submit that the Tribunal could not have awarded 30% of the assessed income towards future prospects. It is his submission that the deceased was aged 57 years as on the date of accident and as such the claimants would be entitled to 10% of the assessed income towards future prospects, but the Tribunal committed an error in adding 30% of the assessed income towards future prospects. Further he submits that the 1st claimant is the wife of the deceased Seetharamaiah and claimants 2 and 3 are the major sons of the deceased and hence they cannot be considered as dependents on the income of the deceased Seetharamaiah. Therefore, the Tribunal committed an error in deducting 1/4th towards the personal expenses. He submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, deduction at 1/3rd ought to have been made by the Tribunal for computation of compensation. Thus he prays for allowing the appeal.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents – claimants would submit that the Tribunal awarded just compensation, which requires no interference. Further he submits that the accident is of the year 2010 and the judgment and award is passed in the year 2013. The Tribunal while considering the future prospects has relied upon the decision of this Court in SANTHOSH DEVI Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., AND OTHERS reported in 2012 ACJ 1428. Further he submits that the claimants 2 and 3 are children of the deceased, who were wholly depending on the income of the deceased. As such the Tribunal is justified in taking the deduction at 1/4th towards personal expenses. Thus he prays for dismissal of the appeal.
6. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, the points that arise for consideration is as to :-
a. Whether the Tribunal is justified in adding 30% of the assessed income towards future prospects ?
b. Whether the Tribunal is justified in deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased ?
Point ‘a’ is answered in the affirmative and point ‘b’ is answered in the negative for the following reasons :
The occurrence of the accident on 20.09.2010 involving Tempo Traveller bearing Reg.No.KA-04-A-5688 and the accidental death of one Seetharamaih are not in dispute in this appeal. The insurer is in appeal on the ground of awarding excess compensation to the claimants. The first contention of the insurer is that the Tribunal committed an error in adding 30% of the assessed income towards future prospects. It is to be noted that the claimants stated that the deceased was earning monthly salary of Rs.6,000/- by working as a Mason, but the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month. This Court and Lok Adalath while settling the accident claims of the year 2010 would normally take notional income of Rs.5,500/- per month. Further on assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month, the Tribunal added 30% of the assessed income towards future prospects. As on the date of passing the impugned judgment and award the decision of SANTHOSH DEVI cited supra was prevailing. The Tribunal relying on the said decision added 30% of the assessed income of the deceased towards future prospects. Moreover, I am of the view, that when the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side, awarding of future prospects at 30% would balance the compensation. Thus I am of the view, that awarding of 30% of the assessed income towards future prospects needs no interference. The next contention urged by the insurer is that the Tribunal committed an error in deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased while computing the compensation. The 1st claimant is wife of the deceased, whereas claimants 2 and 3 are major sons of the deceased. The claimants have not made available any material to indicate that they were wholly dependent on the income of the deceased Seetharamaiah as they were aged 25 and 22 years respectively. I am of the view, that they cannot be considered as wholly dependent on the income of the deceased. However, the family consisted of three persons apart from the deceased. Hence I am of the view, that deduction towards personal expenses could be taken at 1/3rd. Thus the claimants would be entitled for the following modified compensation :-
a. Loss of dependency including future prospects (Rs.4,500/- + 30% = Rs.5,850/-
Rs.5,850/- less 1/3rd (Rs.1,950/-) = Rs.3,900/- Rs.3,900/- x 12 x 9 ) 4,21,200/-
b. Conventional heads 70,000/-
c. Medical Expenses 13,107/-
Total Rs.5,04,307/-
7. Accordingly, the appeal of the insurer is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award is modified to the above extent and the claimants are entitled to reduced compensation in a sum of Rs.5,04,307/- as against Rs.5,37,011/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.
The amount in deposit be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal.
Sd/- JUDGE NG* CT:bms