IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR M.F.A.NO.2901 OF 2017 (MV) A/W M.F.A.NO. 6954 OF 2017(MV) IN M.F.A.NO.2901/2017 BETWEEN RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED NO.28, 5TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001.
NOW REPRESENTED BY MANAGER LEGAL.
(BY SRI.ASHOK.N.PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SRI. M.S.ESHWARA S/O LATE SOMAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.
2. SMT.PREMAMMA W/O M.S.ESHWARA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS.
3. KUM.NANDHINI D/O M.S.ESHWARA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS.
…APPELLANT ALL ARE PERMANENT RESIDENT OF MADAPURA VILLAGE H.D.KOTE TALUK MYSURU.
NOW R/AT C/O SANTHOSH RAJ K.B., NO. 778, “LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA NILAYA” OPP. VINAYAKA TECHNOLOGY RAJAPALYA (HOODI) MAHADEVAPURA POST BENGALURU – 560 048.
4. SRI. VADIVELU S/O SUBRAMANIGOWDA NO.55/1, 16TH CROSS RAGHAVENDRA LAYOUT PEENYA 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560 058.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.B.BHANU PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3 SRI. T.V.NANJEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-4) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:16.02.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO. 2888/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXVIII ACMM, BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.25,55,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT IN COURT AND ETC.
IN M.F.A.NO.6954/2017 BETWEEN 1. SRI.M.S.ESHWARA S/O LATE SOMAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
BELAWADI VILLAGE & POST.
2. SMT. PREMAMMA W/O M.S.ESHWARA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.
3. KUM.NANDHINI D/O M.S.ESHWARA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS.
ALL ARE PERMANENT RESIDENTS OF: MADAPURA VILLAGE, H.D.KOTE TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT.
NOW RESIDING AT:
C/O. SRI. SANTHOSH RAJ K.B.
NO.778, “LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA NILAYA” OPPOSITE TO VINAYAKA TECHNOLOGY RAJAPALYA(HOODI), MAHADEVAPURA POST BENGALURU – 560 048.
…APPELLANTS (BY SRI. H.B.BHANU PRAKASH, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SRI.VADIVELU S/O SUBRAMANIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT: NO.55/1, 16TH CROSS RAGHAVENDRA LAYOUT, PEENYA 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560 058.
2. THE MANAGER RELIANCE GEN.INS.CO.LTD., NO.28, EAST WING 5TH FLOOR CENTENARY BUILDINGS, M.G.ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK.N.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 R-1 NOTICE D/W) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 16.02.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO. 2888/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, & XXVIII ACMM, MACT, BENGALURU, PARLTY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT MFA No.2901/2017 is preferred by the Insurance Company. MFA No.6954/2017 is preferred by the claimants challenging the impugned judgment and award dated 16.02.2017 passed in MVC No.2888/2015 by the learned MACT, Bengaluru, awarding a sum of Rs.25,55,000/- together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit on account of the death of one Kiran.E in a road traffic accident that occurred on 05.12.2014.
2. Though the matters are listed for orders, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company urged various grounds as set out in the memorandum of appeal in order to contend that the compensation awarded is highly excessive and the same requires to be reduced by this Court.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants who also preferred MFA No.6954/2017 submits that the material on record would indicate that the compensation awarded is inadequate and insufficient and the same requires enhancement. It is also contended that the Tribunal committed an error in not adding 40% of future prospects to the notional income without considering or appreciating the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others (2017) 16 SCC 680. It is also contended by him that the Tribunal has failed to consider the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram & Others (2018) 18 SCC 130 and reiterated by the Division Bench 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’. He therefore requests this Court to reduce the compensation by modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2-Insurance company would support the impugned judgment and award.
6. I have given my careful consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
7. A perusal of the impugned judgment and award would clearly indicate that the Tribunal has considered and appreciated the pleadings and evidence of the parties in their proper perspective and arrived at just and reasonable compensation to be awarded in favour of the claimants.
8. The only error that seems to have been committed by the Tribunal is that after coming to the conclusion that the income of the deceased was Rs.15,000/- p.m., the Tribunal awarded 50% towards future prospects.
8. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the claimants, income of the deceased has to be taken as Rs.15,000/- p.m. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi’s case, the Tribunal ought to have added 40% of future prospects to the notional income of Rs.15,000/- per month. Hence, the compensation under the head ‘loss of dependency’ is reworked as hereunder: (Rs.15,000 x 40% = Rs.21,000/-
Rs.21,000/4 = Rs.5,250/-
Rs.21,000/- - Rs.5,250/- = Rs.15,750/-) If 1/3rd of income is deducted towards personal expenses of deceased, it would come to Rs.10,500/-. Thus the appellants-claimants in MFA No.6954/2017 are entitled to the total compensation of Rs.22,68,000/- (Rs.10,500/- x 18 x 12) under the head ‘loss of dependency’.
9. Considering the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Magma’s case and the Division Bench of this Court (supra), the claimants are entitled to an additional sum of Rs.90,000/- towards ‘loss of consortium’.
10. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, the total compensation would have to be reworked as hereunder:
1 Loss of dependency Rs.22,68,000/-
2 Loss of consortium Rs.90,000/-
3 Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
4 Funeral expenses etc. Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.23,88,000/-
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I pass the following order:-
(i) M.F.A.No.2901/2017 filed by the appellant- Insurance Company is partly allowed.
(i) M.F.A.No.6954/2017 filed by the claimants is hereby dismissed.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 16.02.2017 passed in MVC No.2888/2015 by the learned MACT, Bengaluru, is hereby modified.
(iii) The appellants-claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.23,88,000/- which shall carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit instead of Rs.25,55,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
(iv) The apportionment and disbursement to be done as per the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
Sd/- JUDGE bnv