IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6895 OF 2013 (MV-D) BETWEEN:
1. RAMADEVI N, W/O LATE DEVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
2. S LAKSHMAMMA, W/O LATE KEMPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS.
3. RAKSHITHA D, D/O LATE DEVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS.
4. JATHIN D.R, S/O LATE DEVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS.
APPELLANT NO.4 IS MINOR REP. BY THEIR MOTHER RAMADEVI, THE NATURAL GUARDIAN.
ALL THE ABOVE APPELLANTS ARE R/AT NO.777, IST MAIN ROAD, VYALIKAVAL, BANGALORE – 03. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI.SHRIPAD V SHASTRI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., R.O.2B, UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE, MISSION, BANGALORE – 27, BY ITS MANAGER.
2. MR.PAVAN PREET SINGH, MAJOR, R/AT C/O M/S BHOPA RAI AND ANOTHER, AMARPATAN – MAIHAR ROAD, AMARPATAN DISTRICT, SATNA, MADHYA PRADESH-485001.
3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., RO NO.44/45, RESIDENCY CROSS ROAD, LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX, BANGALORE – 25, BY ITS MANAGER.
4. MR.SANJEEV SINGH, MAJOR, R/AT 45/14, RENUSAGAR, SONEBHADRA, UTTAR PRADESH. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M NARAYANAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 NOTICE TO R2 TO R4 D/W) - - -
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.03.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.65/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE 19TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, 41ST ACMM, MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal in MVC No.65/2010 dated 12.03.2013, whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.49,71,752/- (Rupees Forty Nine Lakhs Seventy One Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Two only) with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and it has erroneously deducted a sum of Rs.5,000/- in respect of pensionary benefits occured to the deceased Devaraju, who was said to be husband of claimant No.1-Ramadevi N; father of claimant Nos.3 and 4; and son of claimant No.2. The Tribunal has not considered the other areas relating to parental consortium as well as filial consortium. Therefore, in this appeal it requires intervention in the judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal and suitable compensation is to be awarded.
3. It is evident in the claim petition that on 16.08.2009 at about 8.30 p.m. when the deceased Devaraju was proceeding in the car bearing Reg.No.UP-64-J-2707, at the relevant point of time, the truck bearing Reg.No.MP-19-J-3656, which came from the opposite direction in a greater speed, hit on the aforesaid car. Due to which the deceased Devaraju fell down and sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injures at the spot.
Subsequently, the claimants, who are the legal representatives of the deceased Devaraju, have filed the claim petition before the Tribunal seeking suitable compensation.
4. In response to the summons in the claim petition, respondent No.4, who has appeared as a party to the proceedings, was remained absent and did not participate in the proceedings. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 have appeared through their counsel and filed a detail written statement resisting the claim petition. Respondent No.1 has stated that If the policy is found to be in force, the liability of respondent No.1 is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. He has stated that the RC owner has allowed the driver, who did not possessed valid and effective Driving Licence at the time of accident and the vehicle was not having FC and RC. These are the contentions taken on behalf of the respondents and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
5. Based upon the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed the issues. In order to substantiate their claim, claimant No.1, who is the wife of the deceased, has examined herself as P.W.1 and another witness as P.W.2 and got marked the documents Exs.P-1 to P-21. On the other hand, on behalf of respondent No.3 and respondent No.1, two witnesses were got examined as R.W.1 and R.W.2 respectively and got marked the document Ex.R-1.
On appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal allowed the petition in part and awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.49,71,752/-
(Rupees Forty Nine Lakhs Seventy One Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Two only) with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. The claimants challenging the said judgment and award and seeking enhancement of compensation have preferred this appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants, who has taken me through the evidence of P.W.1 - wife of the deceased Devaraju, submits that the deceased was working as Senior Manager of BEML Ltd. and as he was an expert Mechanical Engineer discharging his duties in an exemplary way, he would have promoted to senior post and his salary would have increased by many folds, but unfortunately, the deceased met with an accident and succumbed to injuries. The Tribunal has deducted his pensionary benefits in a sum of Rs.5,000/-, which is incorrect and there is no basis to deduct the said amount. Therefore, he submits that in this appeal it requires intervention by this Court in the judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal.
In the second limb of his arguments, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the claimant No.1 is the wife of deceased Devaraju, the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation under the conventional heads and the same requires to be enhanced. He further submits that parental consortium and filial consortium has not been awarded by the Tribunal insofar as claimant Nos.2 to 4. These are the grounds urged in this appeal by the learned counsel for the appellants- claimants seeking intervention of this Court in the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
7. Sri M.Narayanappa, learned counsel for respondent No.1-Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal has considered the evidence of the claimants and the relevant documents and thereafter awarded the compensation suitably. There is no dispute about the death of the deceased Devaraju in the accident. It is also not in dispute that the deceased Devaraju was working as Senior Manager of BEML Ltd. The Tribunal assigning sound reasons in the impugned judgment, awarded compensation suitably. Hence, in this appeal it does not call for interference even in respect of parental and filial consortium as well as conventional heads as canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellants. Therefore, he contended to dismiss the appeal by confirming the impugned judgment and award.
8. In the backdrop of the strenuous contentions taken by the learned counsel for the appellants, so also, the counter arguments made by the learned counsel for respondent No.1-Insurance Company, it is relevant to state that the deceased was aged about 47 years as on the date of incident and he was working as Senior Manager in BEML Ltd. at KGF. But the Tribunal has deducted his pensionary benefits in a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month, but there is no basis for deduction of the said amount, therefore, it requires intervention of this Court and hence, it is worked out in this appeal as:
Rs.5,000 X 12 X 13 = Rs.7,80,000/-. (Rs.7900-2900X12X13) Hence, the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.7,80,000/- as against Rs.4,50,000/- towards loss of future prospectus.
9. Insofar as compensation under conventional heads are concerned, in view of decision reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, it requires to awarding a further sum of Rs.50,000/- towards conventional heads, accordingly, same is awarded in the present case.
10. Insofar as the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2018 SCC Online SC 1546 in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram, in this judgment as it has been elaborately considered relating to legal parlance of compensation. In the present case, in terms of the above decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the claimant Nos.3 and 4 are minor daughter and son of the deceased Devaraju respectively, therefore under parental consortium it requires awarding of compensation in a sum of Rs.40,000/- and hence, it would come to Rs.80,000/- (Rs.40,000 X 2). In terms of the above judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of their children, which causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit. In the present case, claimant No.2 is the mother of the deceased Devaraju, who is aged about 70 years. Therefore, under filial consortium, it requires awarding of compensation of Rs.40,000/- in the present case.
11. In view of the discussion made above and with the altered factors, the compensation is re- worked out as under:-
Compensation awarded under the heads By MACT By this Court Loss of dependency 44,99,352 44,99,352 Loss of future prospectus 4,52,400 7,80,000 Loss of consortium 5,000 Loss of love and affection 15,000 70,000 Filial Consortium 40,000 Parental Consortium 80,000 Total 49,71,752 54,69,352 12. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.54,69,352/- (Rupees Fifty Four Lakh Sixty Nine Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty Two only) as against Rs.49,71,752/- awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation is Rs. 4,97,600/-.
13. For the reasons and findings as stated above, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The appeal is allowed-in-part. The appellants/claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.4,97,600/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition, till realization, accordingly modified the Judgment.
Respondent No.1/The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., shall deposit the entire amount awarded by the Tribunal as well as the compensation enhanced by this Court, along with interest accrued at the rate of 6% p.a. before the Tribunal, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
The enhanced compensation shall be apportioned in terms of the judgment rendered by the Tribunal.
The amount in deposit, if any, before this court, shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal along with the lower court records, forthwith.
There shall be no order as to the costs. Office to draw the decree accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE BSR