IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. P. SANDESH M.F.A. NO.6813 OF 2012 (MV) BETWEEN:
P G Venkatesh s/o late P Gurunadham Aged about 52 years r/a No.15, 15th `A’ Cross K P Agrahara, Magadi Road Bengaluru-23. ... Appellant (By Sri Jagadish G Kumbar for Sri A Sreenivasaiah, Advocates) AND 1. R Rajendran S/o Radhakrishnan No.22, (Old No.218) Bradway, Prakasam Salali Chennai City & District Tamilnadu-600113.
2. The Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd., I.O. (Chittoor) R.O., No.25, Shankar Narayan Building, M G Road Bengaluru-560001.
New Address:
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. R.O.No.18, 5th Floor Krushi Bhavan Hudson Circle Bengaluru-560001. .. Respondents (By Sri M U Poonacha, Advocate for R2 Notice to R1 d/w. v/o. dtd. 1.3.2014) This MFA is filed u/S. 173(1) of M.V. Act against the judgment and award dated 5.6.2012 passed in MVC No.7039/2009 on the file of the XXI Additional Judge, Member, MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
This appeal is coming on for final hearing this day the Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T This miscellaneous first appeal is filed by the claimant questioning the compensation awarded by the Tribunal as meager in MVC No.7039/2009 dated 05.06.2012 on the file of the Small Causes Judge and MACT, (ACMM-19) Bengaluru.
2. It is the case of the claimant that the deceased on 11.06.2009 at about 5.00 p.m., who was proceeding towards her estate and at that time driver of the Tata Safari Car bearing registration No.T.N.69-J-4163 came in a rash and negligent manner, in reverse direction and dashed against the deceased. As a result of which deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries and immediately she was shifted to nearby Government hospital, wherein she succumbed to the injuries. It is the contention of claimant that deceased was aged about 65 years and she was working as a basket maker and earning Rs.200 to 250 per day. On account of the sudden death of the deceased, the family lost the income of the deceased.
3. In pursuance to the claim petition, Insurance company appeared before the Tribunal and contended that driver of the car was not having driving licence. She is the minor and first respondent entrusted the said vehicle to the driver knowing fully well that the said driver was not having valid driving licence to drive the same, hence Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation.
4. Claimant in order to substantiate his claim, examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked 8 documents, Ex.P.1 to P.8. The respondents have neither led any oral evidence nor produced any documentary evidence.
5. The Tribunal after considering both oral and documentary evidence allowed the claim petition in part by granting compensation of Rs.25,000/- with 6% interest from the date of petition till its realization. Being aggrieved by the same, the claimant is before this Court in this appeal.
6. The grounds urged in the appeal are that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated evidence on record which discloses that the second respondent not led any evidence in rebuttal evidence. The Tribunal ought to have awarded higher compensation than Rs.25,000/-. The learned counsel for the appellant, in support of his contention, he relied upon un-reported judgment dated 29.01.2013 passed in MVC No.3462/2011 referring to this judgment learned counsel would contend that out of loss of estate of the deceased, the Tribunal ought to have taken 50% and same has not been applied by the Tribunal and granted global compensation of Rs. 25,000/- is very much erroneous.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent relying upon the judgment reported in 2018 ACJ 91, Jacob v. Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Trans. Corpn., contended that this Court relying upon earlier judgment of A. Manavalagan v. A.
Krishnamurthy, reported in 2005 ACJ 992 taken 15% of the income and applied relevant multiplier and awarded compensation not more than 15%.
8. Having heard the arguments on both the learned counsel for the parties and in keeping the rival contentions of both the respective counsel, the point that arise for consideration of this Court are:
1. Whether the Court below has committed error in awarding a sum of Rs.25,000/- as global compensation which requires interference of this Court ?
2. What order?
9. It is the contention of the claimant that deceased was working as a basket maker and earning Rs.200-250 per day. To substantiate the same no document has been placed before this Court. On perusal of the judgment and award, the Tribunal awarded amount of Rs.10,000/- on the head of funeral and Obsequies ceremonies, Rs.5,000/- towards transportation and Rs.10,000/- towards love and affection and not awarded any compensation on the head of Loss of estate. The age of the deceased is 65 years as on the date of the accident and there is no dispute. The claimant is also the son aged about 49 years and he is not the dependent. When he is not depending, the judgment of this Court in the case of A. Manavalagan is applicable. Having taken the income of the deceased and the accident has taken place in the year 2009, it requires re-consideration and the notional income is taken as sum of Rs.5,000/- p.m. and applying ‘7’ as multiplier and no question of adding future prospects since she is aged 65 years. Having considered the income as Rs.5,000/- and relevant multiplier is 7 and also taking 15% of the income which comes to 5,000 X 15/100= Rs. 750/-
750 X 12 X 7 = Rs.63,000/-
10. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- on conventional head and another Rs.5,000/- is awarded in addition to Rs.25,000/-, enhanced amount is Rs.30,000/- and hence total compensation payable by the respondent is Rs.68,000/-. Admittedly, the driver of the car is a minor and in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2011 ACJ 1677 in the case of Jawahar Singh V. Bala Jain and others, the Insurance Company is directed to pay the amount and recover the same from the insured.
11. In view of the discussion made above, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The judgment and award of the tribunal is modified by granting Rs.68,000/- with interest at 6% per annum as against Rs.25,000/- awarded by the tribunal.
(iii) Respondent -Insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount with interest @ 6% within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(iv) Send the lower court records forthwith.
Sd/- JUDGE HR