IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR M.F.A.NO.6586 OF 2018 (MV) BETWEEN 1. SMT.PREMA, W/O LATE CHELUVEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 2. MAMATHA, W/O HONNAPPA, S/O LATE CHELUVEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, 3. MITHUN, S/O LATE CHELUVEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS, BEING MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER JAYALAKSHMAMMA 2ND WIFE OF LATE CHELUVEGOWDA.
THE ALL APPELLANTS ARE R/O MAHADESHWARAPURA VILLAGE, MELUKOTE HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 434.
(BY SRI. VIJAY KUMAR T., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. GIRISH B. BALADARE, ADVOCATE) …APPELLANTS AND 1. THE MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., ANANDA COMPLEX, K.R.S. ROAD, PANDAVAPURA TOWN AND TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 434.
2. T.S.MAHESHA, S/O SIDDEGOWDA, MAJOR, R/O TONNUR VILLAGE, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 434.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.S.LAKSHMINARASAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.B.C.SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 DISPENSED WITH) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:11.04.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.673/2014, ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MACT, PANDAVAPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER 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 11.04.2017 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Pandavapura (for short ‘the tribunal’) in MVC.No.673/2014 awarding a sum of Rs.4,98,800/- together with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit on account of the death of the deceased in a road traffic accident that occurred on 23.11.2012.
2. Though the matter is listed for further 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 are not in dispute and this appeal is restricted to quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants-claimants submits that the Tribunal committed an error in taking the notional income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- instead of Rs.7,000/- per month in the light of the Lok Adalat guidelines since the accident occurred in the year 2012. It is further contended that the Tribunal was erred in not adding 10% towards future prospects to the income as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, since the deceased was aged about 50 years as on the date of accident. It is also contended that the Tribunal committed an error in not awarding any compensation towards ‘loss of estate’.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent- Insurance Company would support the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
6. I have given my careful consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
7. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants, the Tribunal committed an error in taking the notional income as Rs.6,000/- p.m. instead of Rs.7,000/- p.m. as per Lok Adalat guidelines since the accident occurred during the year 2012. By adding 10% as per law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the income for the purpose of assessing ‘loss of dependency comes to Rs.7,700/- p.m. 1/3 should be deducted since the deceased was left behind 3 dependents i.e. appellants-claimants herein and as such, a sum of Rs.5,133/- has to be reckoned for the purpose of assessing ‘loss of dependency’. Thus, the appellants- claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.8,00,748/- towards ‘loss of dependency’ as stated hereunder:
5,133x12x13 = Rs.8,00,748/-
8. The Tribunal also committed an error in not awarding any compensation towards ‘loss of estate’. I deem it fit and proper a sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded under the head ‘loss of estate.
9. The compensation awarded under other conventional heads is just and proper and same does not warrant interference by this Court.
10. Accordingly, the appellants-claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation as hereunder:
11. The Tribunal having awarded a sum of Rs.4,98,800/-, the appellants-claimants would be entitled to additional sum of Rs.4,56,948/- (9,55,748.00 - 4,98,800.00) by way of additional enhanced compensation together with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the realization.
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I pass the following:
ORDER 1. The appeal is partly allowed.
2. The appellants-claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.4,56,948/- which shall carry interest at 6% p.a. excluding the interest for the delayed period of 393 days from the date of claim petition till realization.
3. The apportionment and disbursement to be done as per the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
Sd/- JUDGE SSD