IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR M.F.A.NO.4622 OF 2018(MV) Between 1. Smt. Pramila M.
W/o Late Manjunatha R Aged about 26 years 2. Master Mahendra S/o Late Manjunatha R. Aged about 8 years 3. Kumari Gaganashree D/o Late Manjunatha R. Aged about 6 years 4. Ramakrishna S/o Swamy Aged about 62 years Appellants 2 & 3 are minors Represented by their Natural guardian mother 1st Appellant All are residing at No.153/A, 4th Cross Ashokapura Mysuru-570 002. …Appellants (By Sri. Shantharaj.K., Advocate )
(V/o dated 31.01.2019, notice to R1 & R2 is d/w.) This appeal is filed under section 173(1) of MV Act, against the judgment and award dated 23.02.2017 passed in MVC.No.317/2015 on the file of the Judge, Principal Small Causes & MACT, Mysuru, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
This appeal coming on for Orders, this day the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT This appeal has been filed by the appellants- claimants challenging the impugned judgment and award dated 23.02.2017 passed by the Judge, Principal Small Causes & MACT, Mysuru (for short ‘the Tribunal’), in M.V.C.No.317/2015 whereby the Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.16,31,000/- together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization in favour of the appellant-claimant on account of death of the deceased in the road traffic accident that occurred on 14.11.2014.
2. Though the matter is listed for Orders, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
3. Both the counsels submit that the occurrence of accident as well as the coverage of the policy of the offending vehicle by the Insurance Company is not in dispute and this appeal is restricted to quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants submit that having regard to the Lok Adalat guidelines coupled with the fact that the accident took place in the year 2014, the notional income ought to have been taken as Rs.8,500/- p.m. instead of Rs.6,000/- p.m. as wrongly held by the Tribunal. Consequently, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires enhancement by this Court.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company would support the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. Further, the learned counsel submits that the sum of Rs.1,25,000/- is awarded towards ‘love and affection, Rs.80,000/- towards ‘loss of consortium’, Rs.75,000/- towards ‘loss of life expectancy, Rs.30,000/- towards loss of estate’ and Rs.25,000/- towards ‘prospective future expenses are excessive and on the higher side and the same would be reworked and just and fair compensation is to be awarded.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
7. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant, the notional income of the deceased has to be taken as Rs.8,500/- p.m. instead of rs.6,000/- p.m. as wrongly held by the Tribunal. Further, the Tribunal committed error in directing 50% to be added towards ‘future prospects’ which has to be reduced. In my considered view, it has to be reduced to 45%. Accordingly, the appellants-claimants would be entitled to RS.17,74,800/- under the head ‘loss of dependency’.
8,500x45/100x12x16x3/4=Rs.17,74,800/-
8. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent No.3- Insurance Company, the Tribunal has awarded excessive amounts under the conventional heads in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited V. Pranay Sethi and Ors reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and in the case of Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd. V. Nanu Ram reported in 2018 SCC online SC 1546, I am of the opinion that the appellant would be entitled a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- under a single head i.e. ‘loss of consortium’. So also they would be entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/- each towards ‘loss of estate’ and ‘funeral expenses’. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal has to be reworked as hereunder:
1 Loss of dependency Rs. 17,74,800.00 2 Consortium Rs. 1,30,000.00 3 Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000.00 Total Rs. 19,34,800.00 The Tribunal has already awarded a total compensation of Rs.16,31,000/-. Thus, the appellants- claimants would be entitled to an additional enhanced compensation of Rs.3,38,800/- (Rs.19,34,800.00 – Rs.16,31,000.00).
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I pass the following:
ORDER (i) The appeal is partly allowed.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 23.02.2017 passed by the Judge, Principal Small Causes & MACT, Mysuru in M.V.C.No.317/2015 is hereby set aside.
(iii) The appellants-claimants are entitled to additional enhanced compensation of Rs.3,38,800/- which shall carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization excluding the period of 334 days in respect of which the delay has been condoned by this Court.
(iv) The apportionment and disbursement to be done as per the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
Sd/- JUDGE SSD