IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT M.F.A.No.2395/2014 [MV] BETWEEN:
THE RELIANCE GENERAL INS. CO. LTD., EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR NO.28, CENTENARY BUILDING M G ROAD BANGALORE-560002 NOW REPRESENTED BY MANAGER LEGAL.
...APPELLANT (BY SRI. ASHOK N PATIL, ADV.) AND:
1. D KUMAR S/O LATE DORAISWAMY AGED 40 YEARS 2. SMT. HEMAVATHI W/O D KUMAR AGED 35 YEARS BOTH ARE R/A NO.42 2ND CROSS, SATHYANAGAR M S NAGAR POST BANGALORE-33.
3. MR. RAJU S/O ANTHONY NO.15, KORAMANGALA POST JOGI COLONY 6TH BLOCK, 2ND CROSS MADIVALA CHECK POST BANGALORE-68.
(BY SMT. Y RADHA, ADV. FOR R1 & R2 R3 IS SERVED) …RESPONDENTS THIS M.F.A. FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.08.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.4504/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXIV ACMM, MEMBER MACT, BANGALORE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.5,35,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE REALIZATION.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T The Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., is in appeal against the judgment and award dated 31.08.2013 passed in MVC No.4504/2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and V Additional Small Causes Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short).
2. The claimants are parents of the deceased Anitha, aged about 9 years as on the date of accident. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation for the death of Anitha in a motor accident. It is stated that on 01.07.2012, when the deceased was playing with her friend, the driver of the Goods auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-01/AA-3251 came in high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the deceased. Due to which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries. Immediately she was shifted to Sathya hospital, but died on the way to the hospital. It is stated that the deceased was hale and healthy and was active in her day to day work. The claimants have lost their daughter for ever and they are suffering from mental and physical agony.
3. On issuance of notice, respondent No.1 remained absent. Respondent No.2 appeared before the Tribunal and filed its statement, denying the claim petition averments, but admitted issuance of insurance policy, in respect of the Goods auto rickshaw. It is also stated that claim of the claimants is excessive and exorbitant.
4. Mother of the deceased i.e. second claimant got herself examined as P.W.1 apart from marking Ex.P1 to Ex.P9. On behalf of respondents, neither any witness is examined nor marked any document.
5. The Tribunal, on appreciation of material on record awarded total compensation of Rs.5,35,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization, on the following heads:
1. Pecuniary Damages :: Rs.5,00,000/-
2. Loss of love and affection :: Rs. 20,000/-
3. Funeral and obsequies :: Rs. 10,000/-
4. Transportation charges :: Rs. 5,000/-
Total Rs.5,35,000/-
The insurer, being aggrieved by the exorbitant quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants, is before this Court in this appeal.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/insurer and learned counsel for the respondents/claimants. Perused the material on record.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurer would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is too excessive and the same is liable to be reduced. It is his submission that the deceased was aged 9 years and the pecuniary damages assessed by the Tribunal is on the higher side. It is his submission that the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of KISHAN GOPAL AND ANOTHER v/s LALA AND OTHERS reported in (2014) 1 SCC 244 would have no application to the facts of the present case. In the said case, the deceased was aged 10 years and was assisting his parents in agricultural fields. But, in the instant case, there is no evidence to that effect. Hence, learned counsel for the appellant prays for reduction of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/ claimants would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just compensation, which needs no interference. She submits that the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in KISHAN GOPAL case (supra) would squarely apply to the facts of the present case and prays for dismissal of the appeal.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, the only point which falls for consideration in this appeal is:
Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just compensation?
10. Answer to the above point would be in the affirmative for the following reasons:
The accident occurred on 01.07.2012 involving the Goods auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-01/AA- 3251 and the accidental death of Anitha, daughter of the claimants is not in dispute in this appeal. The insurer is in appeal aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The claimant No.2/mother of the deceased has stated that the deceased was aged 9 years and was studying in 3rd Standard. She was hale and healthy and was very active in her day to day activities. The claimants have lost their loving daughter at a tender age. The Hon'ble Apex Court in KISHAN GOPAL case even though has observed that the deceased in the said case was assisting his parents in the agricultural field, further at paragraph 38 has observed that considering the fact that Rupee value has come down drastically during the year 1994. Hence, notional income of the non-earning member prior to the date of accident which was fixed at Rs.15,000/- is on the lower side. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of R.K.MALIK AND ANOTHER v/s KIRAN PAL AND OTHERS reported in (2009)14 SCC 1, at paragraphs 22 and 23 has held as follows:
“22. It is extremely difficult to quantify the non-pecuniary compensation as it is to a great extent based upon the sentiments and emotions. But, the same could not be a ground for non-payment of any amount whatsoever by stating that it is difficult to quantify and pinpoint the exact amount payable with mathematical accuracy.”
“23. Human life cannot be measured only in terms of loss of earning or monetary losses alone. There are emotional attachments involved and loss of a child can have a devastating effect on the family which can be easily visualized and understood. Perhaps, the only mechanism known to law in this kind of situation is to compensate a person who has suffered non-pecuniary damages/ monetary compensation. Undoubtedly, when a victim of a wrong suffers injuries, he is entitled to compensation including compensation for the prospective life, pain and suffering, happiness, etc., which is sometimes described as compensation paid for “loss of expectation of life.”
A reading of the above would indicate that the compensation is not exactly for loss of dependency and it is for loss of human life which cannot be measured in terms of money. Thus, I am of the view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just compensation which needs no interference. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/ JUDGE mpk/-* CT:bms