IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT MFA No.1199 OF 2018 (MV) BETWEEN REGIONAL MANAGER BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD GOLDEN HEIGHT COMPLEX, 9TH FLOOR 59TH C CROSS, RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE 560010 (REPRSENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANGER) ... APPELLANT (BY SMT. SANMATHI E.I., ADVOCATE) AND 1. SRI RANGASHETTY S/O DODDAYALAKKISHETTY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 2. SMT. SANNAMMA W/O CHIKKASHETTY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 3. SRI. KRISHNASHETTY S/O DODDAYALAKKISHETTY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 4. SRI. BHAGYAMMA W/O MANJASHETTY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT BARGURU KOPPALU VILLAGE, DANDIGANAHALLI HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK.
5. SMT. RANGAMMA W/O YOGASHETTY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT KALLIMUDDANAHALLI VILLAGE, HALLI MYSORE HOBLI, HASSAN DISTRICT.
6. SRI. SANTOSH JOSEPH S/O AMBRANDIVAYALLI J.J. AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS D.G.C.L. EXCHANGE STAFF QUARTERS, B.M.T LAYOUT 2ND STAGE, MADIVALLA, BANGALORE 560068.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI RAJARAM SOORYAMBAIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5; NOTICE TO R6 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:27.10.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.1263/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, & JMFC, CHANNARAYAPATNA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.4,26,010/- WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT This appeal by the insurer calls in question the judgment and award dated 27.10.2017 entered by MACT, Channarayapatna whereby the respondents-claimants’ M.V.C.No.1263/2015 having been favoured, a compensation of Rs.4,26,010/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. has been awarded subject to a usual condition of bank deposit and apportionment. The claimants having entered appearance through their counsel, oppose the appeal.
2. In a vehicular accident that happened on 23.01.2015 because of rash and negligent driving of the offending Honda Car bearing Registration No.KA-05-BM-5632, one Smt. Siddamma @ Putta Siddamma having sustained fatal injuries, succumbed thereto, on 25.01.2015. The claim petition filed by the respondents-claimants was resisted by the appellant by filing the Written Statement.
3. To prove the claim, respondent No.1- Sri Rangashetty being the first claimant got himself examined as PW-1 and from his side, 21 documents came to be mark the Police papers, RTO papers, Postmortem Report & Medical records. None was examined from the side of the Insurer nor any document was got marked.
4. The MACT after perusing pleadings of the parties and after weighing the evidential material on record has made the judgment & award that are put in challenge by the Insurer on the ground of awarding excessive compensation.
5. Learned panel counsel for the appellant-Insurer finds fault with the impugned judgment and award inasmuch as the MACT has awarded a sum of Rs.2,00,060/- by way of compensation for loss of dependency when that question would not arise, since the claimants being major children are not the dependants more specially, when no material is produced to show that they were in fact dependants on the income of the deceased; he also finds fault with the award of interest at the rate of 9% which is 3% in excess of what is normally granted; so arguing, he seeks allowing of the appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the claimants per contra submits that the MACT being a statutory body in its accumulated wisdom has awarded a compensation under the head loss of dependency; in fact, what is awarded as compensation in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head loss of estate is militantly low; therefore, this Court being duty bound to award a just compensation, can set off against what is less awarded under various other heads; viewed from any angle, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the appeal papers, this appeal needs to be partly favoured for the following reasons:
a) the contention that no compensation could have been awarded under the head loss of dependency has force, since all the claimants are admittedly major by age, and that they have not produced even an iota of material to establish that they were the dependents on the earnings of the deceased Siddamma, who was aged 70 years, when she breathed her last; it is the major children who should look after aged mother and not the reverse; therefore, no compensation was payable under the head loss of dependency as rightly contended by learned panel counsel for the Insurer; however, matter does not end here, b) regardless of the claim, the MACT is under a duty to award a just compensation and appeal arising from the award of the MACT imposes a similar duty on this Court as contended by leaned counsel for the claimants; no compensation ought to have been awarded under the head ‘loss of dependency’, is true; however, what has been awarded under the head ‘loss of estate’ being too low, the compensation needs to be enhanced under that head; regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded under the head loss of estate stands upwardly revised to Rs.2,00,000/-; and c) the contention of the Insurer that the rate of interest prescribed by the MACT is 9%, which is on a higher side, does not merit acceptance; true it is, ordinarily, the interest at the rate of 6% is admissible in terms of Section 34 of CPC, 1908 which needs to be read into the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1998 as held in a catena of decisions; however, that is not a thumb rule going by the present trend of decisions of Apex Court and several High Courts.
In the above circumstances, the appeal having been favoured in part; the impugned judgment and award are modified reducing the compensation from Rs.4,26,010/- to Rs.3,26,010/-(Rupees Three Lakhs Twenty Six Thousand and Ten) only.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE KTY