IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B MANOHAR MFA No.4137/2015 (MV) BETWEEN RELIANCE GENERAL INS. CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.28, EAST WING CENTENARY BUILDING, M G ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001 NOW REPRESENTED BY MANAGER LEGAL. .. APPELLANT (By Sri ASHOK N PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SADAPPA S/O LATE DODDA KULLAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT ICHANGURU VILLAGE ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT – 562 106.
2. MANJUNATH S/O RAJANNA R/AT NERALUR VILLAGE AND POST ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT – 562 106. .. RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:01.04.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.64/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE IIIRD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MACT, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT SIT AT ANEKAL, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.8,70,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT The Reliance General Insurance Company Limited has filed this appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and award dated 1st April, 2015 passed in MVC No.64/2010 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Anekal (for short `Tribunal’) with regard to quantum of compensation.
2. The 1st respondent herein filed a claim petition contending that on 28.4.2010, the deceased Lokesh, son of the claimant, after purchasing the fruits and vegetables in the market, got down from a bus at Yedavanahalli gate at 11.30 p.m. While the deceased was standing on the extreme left side of the road to cross the road, the driver of a tempo bearing Registration No.KA-01/168 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased Lokesh. Due to that, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over the body. However, he succumbed to the injuries and the body was shifted to Attibele Hospital wherein he was declared as brought dead. In the claim petition, it was contended that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 25 years. He was doing vegetable vending business and earning Rs.5,000/- per month. The family has lost the bread earner and sought for compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-.
3. The Insurance Company defended the case by filing written statement and contended that the accident had occurred due to contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Hence, sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues.
5. After trial, the Tribunal held that due to actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the tempo, the accident had occurred and the son of the claimant died. Hence, the claimant is entitled for compensation.
6. Since the accident occurred in the year 2010, taking the income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month, deducting 50% thereof since the deceased was a bachelor and applying the multiplier 18 since he was aged about 25 years, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,40,000/- towards `loss of dependency’ and Rs.30,000/- towards conventional heads. In all, a sum of Rs.5,70,000/- has been awarded with interest at 6% p.a. The liability was fastened on the Insurance Company to compensate the claimant. The Insurance Company being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal has filed this appeal.
7. Sri Ashok N Patil, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant contended that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is contrary to law. He contended that there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The Tribunal has not taken into consideration the said aspect of the matter. Further, at the time of death of the deceased, the claimant was aged about 60 years. The Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the age of the claimant while applying the multiplier. Hence, the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is contrary to law.
8. I have carefully considered the argument addressed by the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant, perused the judgment and award and oral and documentary evidence.
9. Though the appellant has taken the contention with regard to contributory negligence, the appellant has not stepped into the witness box to prove the defence taken in the written statement in accordance with law. No document has been produced to prove the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The case of the claimant is that after getting down from the bus, when the deceased was standing on the left side of the road to cross the road, the driver of the tempo drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased. Due to that, the deceased died on the spot. The contention taken by the appellant with regard to contributory negligence has not been proved in accordance with law. Hence, the said contention is rejected.
10. With regard to quantum of compensation is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgments reported in (2012) 11 SCC 378 in the case of Amrit Bhanu Shali –vs- National Insurance Company Ltd. and (2015) 6 SCC 347 in the case of Munnalal Jain and anr. –vs- Vipin Kumar Sharma and ors. has clearly laid down a law that the age of the deceased has to be taken into consideration in accordance with the table enunciated in Sarla Verma and Others –vs- Delhi Corporation Transportation and another (2009) 6 SCC 121. In the instant case, the Tribunal taking into consideration the age of the deceased and applying the multiplier 18 awarded the compensation. Hence, I find that there is no infirmity or irregularity in the said finding. The issue is covered in the judgments referred to above. I find that there is no merit in both the contentions urged by the appellant. The appellant has not made out a case to interfere with the well considered judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER Appeal is dismissed.
The amount in deposit made before this Court is ordered to be transferred to the MACT, Anekal, for disbursement.
Sd/- JUDGE Bkm.