IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. SREENIVASE GOWDA M.F.A. NO.6470/2013 (MVC) BETWEEN:-
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED REGIONAL OFFICE LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX NO.44/45, RESIDENCY CROSS ROAD BANGALORE 560025 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAJAGOPALAN R, ADV.,) AND:-
1. SMT. BHARATHAMMA @ BHARATHI AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS W/O LATE SHRI MANJUNATH 2. KUM. SIRISHA AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS D/O LATE SHRI MANJUNATH 3. KUM SHWETHA AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS D/O LATE SHRI MANJUNATH 4. MASTER CHARANKUMAR AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS S/O LATE SHRI MANJUNATH RESPONDENT NOS.2, 3, 4, MINORS, REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN / MOTHER-SMT BHARATHAMMA @ BHARATHI, THE 1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN 5. SHRI NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS SON OF LATE GURAPPA 6. SMT RAMAKKA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS WIFE OF SHRI NARAYANAPPA ALL ARE RESIDING AT HARAPANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, MULBAGAL TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT 563 131 7. SMT R MADHAVI W/O SHRI R V BALAJI MAJOR SHRI VENKATESHWARA MOTOR SERVICE GANDHINAGAR KOLAR 563 101 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N GOPAL KRISHNA, ADV., FOR R1, R5 & R6; R2 TO R4 ARE MINORS REP. BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN R1;
R7 SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:25.04.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.5573/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE XII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.7,43,040/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
J U D G M E N T This appeal is by the insurer of offending vehicle challenging the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal both on the ground of negligence as well as quantum.
2. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this appeal is heard and disposed of finally. Perused the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal including the records.
3. As there is no dispute regarding death of one Manjunath in a road traffic accident occurred on 30.03.2011 by involvement of a Private SVMS bus bearing registration No.KA-07-4678, points that arise for consideration in the appeal are:
“1) Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that accident had occurred due to contributory negligence of 10% on the part of the deceased and 90% on the part of the driver of the bus?
2) Whether quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for reduction?”
4. Sri. Rajagopalan R., learned counsel appearing for the insurer of offending vehicle submits that death of deceased is not on account of rash and negligent driving of bus by its driver, it is on account of negligent traveling of deceased by standing in the footboard of the bus by consuming alcohol. His submission was, if deceased had not traveled by standing in the footboard of the bus by consuming alcohol, he would not have fallen on the road resulted in his death. The Tribunal without considering the same has committed an error in holding that death is on account of contributory negligence of 10% on the part of deceased and 90% on the part of the driver of the bus. Regarding quantum, learned counsel submits that though the income of the deceased was not established, the Tribunal has committed an error in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month and adding 30% of the said earning to his income towards future prospects and arriving the income of the deceased at Rs.5,200/- and awarding higher compensation towards loss of dependency. Therefore, he prays for allowing the appeal both on the ground of negligence and quantum.
5. Sri. Jagadeesh G. Kumbar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. N. Gopalakrishna, learned counsel appearing for the claimants submits that contention of the insurer that deceased was traveling by standing at the footboard of the bus by consuming alcohol is not proved. He further submits that in view of the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.4,000/- for the death of deceased which took place in the year 2011, the matter does not call for interference and he prays for dismissal of the appeal in its entirety.
6. It is a case of death of one Manjunath, aged about 28 years. Claim petition is filed by his wife, three minor children and parents. In the instant case, the accident took place during the year 2011 and the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- and added 30% of Rs.4,000/- amounting to Rs.1,200/- to the said income towards future prospects and taken his income at Rs.5,200/- which is less than the income used to be taken by this Court for death of a person in a road traffic accident occurred during the year 2010 and 2011. Further, the compensation of Rs.30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under conventional head is also on the lower side. Therefore, this Court does not incline to interfere with the matter either on the ground of negligence or quantum.
Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
Amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement in favour of the claimants in terms of the award of the Tribunal.
No order as to costs.
SD/- JUDGE PMR