IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH MFA.No.8537/2012(MV) BETWEEN:
1. PALLAVI D/O. MRUTHYUNJAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS 2. RAGINI D/O. MURTHYUNJAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS 3. RADHA D/O. LATE SIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS 4. CHAITHRA D/O. LATE SIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER GUARDIAN MOTHER - CHANDRAMMA W/O. LATE SIDDAIAH ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF ARAKERE VILLAGE TUMAKURU TALUK-572 101 ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.R. RAMESH AND SRI. BHOJARAJA, ADVOCATES) AND:
1. YOGESH N S/O. NARASAPPA MAJOR R/O. YALLAPURA ARAKERE POST TUMAKURU TALUK-572 101 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., 1ST FLOOR JAYADEVA COMPLEX P.B.NO.54, B.H. ROAD TUMAKURU-572 101 REPRESENTED BY IT’S BRANCH MANAGER ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JANARDHAN REDDY, ADV., FOR R2 R1 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.12.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.788 OF 2008 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT-10, TUMAKURU, 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 Though this matter is listed for admission today, with the consent of both the learned counsel for the appellants and respondents, it is taken up for final disposal.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that:
The Claimants No.1 to 4 are the grand children of deceased Ramaiah and their case is that they were depending on the income of the grand father – Ramaiah since they were staying along with him. Due to untimely death of their grand father, they were not having any income, particularly, claimants No.2 to 4, who are minors. The Tribunal considering the evidence of PW-1 i.e., petitioner No.1 and also the documentary evidence – Exs.P1 to P8, did not accept the case of the claimants with regard to the dependency, but awarded compensation on the head of ‘loss of love and affection’ an amount of Rs.10,000/- and transportation and funeral expenses, an amount of Rs.10,000/-, in all awarded an amount of Rs.20,000/-. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Award of the Tribunal, the claimants have questioned the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The grounds urged in the appeal are that the father of appellant Nos.1 and 2 is unemployed and he has no avocation and they were depending upon the income of their grand father. Insofar as the appellant Nos.3 and 4 are concerned, their father passed away and deceased Ramaiah happens to be their grand father was looking after their welfare and they were entirely depending on him. The Tribunal has committed an error in not considering the dependency. The Tribunal fails to take note of the fact that the father of claimants No.3 and 4 was pre-deceased, their grand father. The Tribunal ought to have considered the dependency and awarded compensation.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants also reiterates the grounds urged in the appeal and so also he would submit that the claimant Nos.3 and 4 are the minors and their mother was also unemployed and the deceased was taking care of the minor children and hence, they are entitled for the compensation under the head of ‘Loss of Dependency’.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent – Insurance Company would submit that the Tribunal has not committed any error in considering both the oral and documentary evidence. The learned counsel further submits that in support of their claims, they were not produced any documents or any material to show that the claimants were dependants on the deceased. Hence, rightly the Tribunal did not accept the case of the appellants. However, the Tribunal taken note of ‘loss of love and affection’ and ‘transportation and funeral expenses’ and awarded an amount of Rs.20,000/- and there are no grounds to enhance the compensation.
5. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and also the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent, there is no dispute with regard to the accident and only issue is with regard to the quantum of compensation.
6. On perusal of the Judgment impugned and the documents placed before the Tribunal, the claimants have not produced any documents to show that these claimants were staying along with the deceased as claimed. No doubt, in the oral evidence, the PW-1 has deposed that they were depending upon the income of the deceased. It has to be noted that the claimants No.1 and 2 were having the parents, but claimants No.3 and 4 were having the mother and their father is pre-deceased the grand father. No semblance of evidence is produced before the Tribunal to prove the fact that they were depending upon the income of the deceased and in the absence of any material I did not find any fault with the Tribunal in not considering the case of the claimants for ‘loss of dependency’. There must be some semblance of evidence before the Court to prove the fact that they were depending upon the income of their grand father.
7. I have already pointed out that the claimants No.1 and 2 are having the parents. The Tribunal while referring to the Claimants No.3 and 4, it is mentioned that they were having parents but the fact that the claimants No.3 and 4 are not having the father but only the mother was alive. It is the case of the claimants that they were also depending upon the income of the deceased and when there was no material regarding their dependency, question of considering the ‘loss of dependency’ does not arise.
8. However, it is noticed by this Court that the Tribunal only awarded an amount of Rs.20,000/- on the heads i.e., ‘loss of love and affection’ and also ‘transportation and funeral expenses’, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680.
The Tribunal ought to have awarded an amount of Rs.70,000/- on the conventional heads and the same has not been done. Hence, it requires an enhancement of Rs.50,000/- since the Tribunal already awarded an amount of Rs.20,000/-. Hence, it requires the modification of the Judgment and Award of the Tribunal.
9. In view of the discussions made above, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part;
(ii) The Judgment and Award dated 01.12.2011 passed in MVC No.788/2008 by the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and Addl. MACT-10, Tumakuru, is modified granting compensation of Rs.50,000/- with 6% interest in addition to the compensation as awarded by the Tribunal;
(iii) The respondent No.2 is directed to pay the amount within four weeks from today; and (iv) The amount may be released in favour of claimants No.1 to 4 equally since they have attained the majority if necessary applications are filed before the Tribunal.
Sd/- JUDGE cp*