IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR M.F.A.NO.10280 OF 2018(MV) BETWEEN 1. SMT. PUTAMMA W/O SRI. LATE HANUMANTHARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
2. KUM.UMADEVI D/O LATE HANUMANTHARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS.
3. MARUTHI PRASAD, S/O.LATE HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT MALLESHAPURA KASABA, KORATAGERE TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
(BY SRI. SATHISHA.T, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SRI.DARMEGOWDA S/O MANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 1ST CROSS, DURGA NAGARA BELUR, HASSAN DISTRICT.
…APPELLANTS 2. SRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NO.514, 3RD FLOOR, R.V. ARCADE BILAKALLY MAIN ROAD OFF B.G.ROAD, IIM POST BENGALURU – 560 076.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI, H.N. KESHAVA PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 V/O/DT: 18.02.2019, R-1 NOTICE D/W) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 10.02.2017, PASSED IN MVC NO. 1406/2015, ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC., AND MACT, MADHUGIRI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMTN OF COMPENSATION AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This appeal has been filed by the claimant challenging the impugned judgment and award dated 10.02.2017 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge & JMFC and MACT, Madhugiri in M.V.C.No.1406/2015 awarding a sum of Rs.10,55,000/- together with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of deposit on account of the death of the deceased Hanumantharayappa in a road traffic accident that occurred on 16.08.2015.
2. Though the matter is listed for admission, 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. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal committed an error in taking notional income of the deceased Hanumantharayappa at Rs.7,500/- p.m., instead of Rs.9,000/- p.m., having regard to the Lok Adalath guidelines which stipulates that in respect of an accident that occurred in the year 2015, the notional income ought to have been taken as Rs.9,000/- p.m. It is also contended that the Tribunal committed an error in not adding 25% of the said notional income since the deceased was aged about 45 years as laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited V. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157. It is therefore contended that the appellants would be entitled to additional compensation under the head loss of dependency after deducting 1/4th of the income towards personal expenses.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2-Insurance Company would support the impugned judgment and award. It is further contended by the learned counsel for Respondent No.2 that the compensation awarded under conventional heads is highly excessive and the same requires to be reduced and just and fair compensation be awarded in favour of the appellants by reworking the compensation.
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, the Tribunal committed an error in taking the notional income of the deceased Rs.7,500/- p.m., instead of Rs.9,000/- p.m., as per the Lok Adalath guidelines since the accident occurred in the year 2015. Accordingly, taking the notional income as Rs.9,000/- p.m., and adding Rs.2,250/- (25%) by way of future prospects and deducting 1/4th from the same, the income for the purpose of assessing loss of dependency comes to Rs.8,437/- p.m. Accordingly, the appellants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.14,17,416/- (8,437/- x 12 x 14) towards loss of dependency.
8. Learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company is correct in contending that the compensation awarded under traditional heads is on the higher side and the same requires to be reworked by awarding just compensation. Under these circumstances, keeping in mind the law laid down by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi’s case supra, Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram & Others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130) as well as the judgment of this Court in M.F.A.No.1100/2019 & connected matter disposed of on 12.06.2019 in awarding compensation towards ‘loss of consortium’. The compensation to be awarded to the appellants is reworked as under:
Thus, the appellants are entitled to a total enhanced compensation of Rs.15,47,416/-.
9. The Tribunal having awarded a sum of Rs.10,55,000/-, the appellants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.4,92,416/- by way of additional enhanced compensation together with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I pass the following:
ORDER (i) The appeal is partly allowed.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 10.02.2017 passed in MVC No.1406/2015 by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Madhugiri, is modified and the appellants-claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.4,92,416/- which shall carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.
(iii) The apportionment and disbursement to be done as per the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
Sd/- JUDGE bnv