IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR MFA NO. 8987 OF 2015 ( MV ) BETWEEN RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NO. 28, 5TH FLOOR CENTENAR BUILDING M.G. ROAD BENGALURU – 560001 REP. BY ITS MANAGER.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI. H. N. KESHAVA PRASHANTH - ADVOCATE) AND 1. SRI. T. RATHNAPPA S/O KADIRAPPA NOW AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS 2. SMT. T. NAGAMMA W/O T. RATHNAPPA NOW AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT MUDARAMPALLE VILLAGE PEDAPANJANI MANDAL CHITOOR DISTRICT-517403 ANDRA PRADESH.
3. SRI. SRINIVASA BABU S/O SUBBAIAH SHETTY MAJOR R/O NO.320/4, A.V. ROAD KALASIPALYAM BANGALORE-560002.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GOPALKRISHNA. N –ADV., FOR R-1 & R-2;
R-3 SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.10.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO. 5568/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MEMBER MACT, BENGALURU IN AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 13,50,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE REALIZATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company and the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and perused the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal and so also other material available on record.
2. The Insurance Company has preferred this appeal challenging the liability fastened on it and also seeking to reduce the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal by its impugned judgment dated 31.10.2015 in MVC No.5568/2014. The Tribunal has awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.13,50,000/- with interest at 9% per annum to the dependants of the deceased who died in a road traffic accident.
3. The factual matrix of the appeal is that on 21.11.2014 at about 7.00 p.m. when the deceased T. Srinivasalu was riding his motor cycle bearing No.AP- 03-KQ-0560 and was proceeding from Baireddypalle to Madurampalle village along with his friend, when they came near Four Roads, Gangavaram Mandal, Chittur District, Andhra Pradesh, the deceased had stopped the vehicle at the edge of the road to ensure movements on the highway road. At that time, a private bus bearing Regn. No.KA-01-AB-8300 coming from Tirupathi to Bengaluru at high speed in a rash and negligent manner is said to have come on the wrong side of the road and had dashed violently to the stationed vehicle of the deceased, due to which the deceased fell down and suffered grievous injuries. Though he was immediately shifted to Government Hospital, Palamaner and in turn to CMC Hospital, Vellore, but in the course of treatment he succumbed to the injuries on the very day itself. Hence, the parents of the deceased being his legal representatives filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation.
4. In pursuance of service of notice, the owner of the offending vehicle – Respondent No.3 remained absent and was placed exparte. However, the appellant herein – Insurer appeared and filed its objections in detail by denying the allegations made in the claim petition. However, it had admitted the policy and its force as on the date of the accident but it was contended that its liability was subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. It had specifically contended that the bus driver did not have a valid and effective Driving Licence to drive the class of bus involved in the accident and the bus also did not have valid permit and other documents to ply via the accident spot and therefore there was breach of policy condition. It was the further contention of the Insurance Company that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the deceased and therefore, it was not liable to pay any compensation and hence sought to dismiss the claim petition.
In order to establish the case against the respondents, the first petitioner / first respondent herein was examined as PW-1 and got marked several documents at Exhibits P1 to P12. But the respondents did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence. On evaluating the evidence of PW1 and documents at Exhibits P1 to P12 such as the post-mortem report at Exhibit P6, IMV report at Exhibit P4 and so also the charge-sheet laid by the Investigating Officer against the accused bus driver relating to the offences under Sections 338 and 304(A) IPC, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligence of the offending vehicle, namely the private bus. Taking the income of the deceased at Rs.7,500/- and adding 50% towards future prospects, The Tribunal proceeded to deduct one-half towards his personal and living expenses and the deceased being aged 18 years, it applied multiplier ‘18’ and arrived at the ‘Loss of dependency’ at Rs.8,10,000/-. The Tribunal had further awarded Rs.60,000 towards ‘Loss of love and affection’, Rs.50,000/- towards ‘Loss of estate’ and Rs.25,000/- towards ‘Transportation of dead body and funeral expenses’ and thus arrived at a total compensation of Rs.13,50,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. It is this judgment which is under challenge in this appeal by the Insurance Company.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant – Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. contends that the Tribunal has committed an error in adopting the multiplier ‘18’ considering the age of the deceased. He contends that when the deceased was a bachelor, the Tribunal could have considered the younger age of parents while granting compensation on the head of ‘Loss of dependency’. Further, the Tribunal has erred in adding 50% of his income towards future prospects. According to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited –vs- Pranay Sethi (AIR 2017 Supreme Court 5157), considering the fact that the deceased did not have a permanent job at the time of his death, ought to have added 40% towards his future prospect. Instead, the Tribunal has added 50% of his income towards future prospects, which requires interference by this Court. He further contends that exorbitant amounts have been awarded towards conventional heads, which also requires interference in view of the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra) and the compensation towards conventional heads should be restricted to Rs.30,000/- in total, the deceased being a bachelor. Thus the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the judgment of the Tribunal requires interference on all the above heads.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 – claimants contends that the Tribunal on proper appreciation of the evidence on record has rightly awarded just and fair compensation under all the heads, which does not call for interference in this appeal.
7. On a careful evaluation of the material on record, it is seen that the deceased was aged about 18 years as per the records produced and was a Mason under Civil Contractors, Bengaluru. Since the accident is of the year 2014, I find that the Tribunal has rightly adopted his notional income at Rs.7,500/- to arrive at the compensation. However, due to the fact that he did not have a permanent employment, as regards computing future prospects, the Tribunal has committed an error in adding 50% of his income towards future prospects. Instead, 40% of his income shall be added towards his future prospects. However, the multiplier adopted at ‘18’ having regard to the age of the deceased and the deduction at one-half towards his personal expenses shall remain unaltered. Hence, taking the income of the deceased at Rs.7,500/- and adding 40% towards his future prospects and thereby deducting one-half towards his personal expenses and applying multiplier ‘18’, the compensation towards ‘Loss of dependency’ is worked out at Rs.11,34,000/- (5250 x 12 x 18) as against Rs.12,15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal had awarded Rs.75,000/- towards ‘Loss of estate’ and ‘Transportation of dead body and funeral expenses’ put together. Having regard to the ratio laid down in National Insurance Company Limited –vs- Pranay Sethi (AIR 2017 Supreme Court 5157), compensation awarded to a bachelor cannot exceed Rs.30,000/- in respect of all the conventional heads put together. Hence, the compensation under the above two heads shall be restricted to Rs.30,000/-. As against Rs.75,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, the compensation under the above two heads shall stand reduced to Rs.30,000/-. But however, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. vs. NANU RAM (2018 SCC ONLINE SC 1546), wherein the said court had granted Rs.40,000/- each to the father as well as sibling of the deceased kid towards ‘Filial Consortium’, in the present case on hand, the compensation of Rs.30,000/- awarded to each of the parents by the Tribunal towards ‘Loss of love and affection’ in view of the death of their son, shall remain intact.
8. In view of the discussion made above and with the altered factors, the compensation is re-worked out as under:-
Particulars Loss of Compensation awarded by MACT 8,10,000 Compensation reduced by this Court Total dependency Add 50% of future prospects 4,05,000 81,000 11,34,000 Loss of love and affection (Rs.30,000/-
each) Loss of Estate (Rs.25,000/-
60,000 Nil 60,000 50,000 Restricted to each) Transportati on of dead body 25,000 Rs.30,000/-
and reduced by Rs.45,000/-
30,000 TOTAL 13,50,000 1,26,000 12,24,000 Hence, the total compensation comes to Rs.12,24,000/- as against Rs.13,50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. However, the interest payable at 9% shall remain unaltered. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The appeal is allowed in part. In modification of the impugned judgment and award dated 31.10.2015 passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.5568/2014, the total compensation payable to the claimants is reduced from Rs.13,50,000/- to Rs.12,24,000/-. The reduced compensation amount would come to Rs. 1,26,000/-. The Respondent-insurer shall deposit the compensation with interest before the Tribunal within four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment and on such deposit, the same shall be disbursed to the claimants in terms of the award, on proper identification. However, the impugned judgment and award, in so far as it relates to the rate of interest, apportionment and deposit is concerned, shall remain unaltered. The amount already deposited, if any, shall be adjusted. The amount in deposit before this court shall be transmitted to the tribunal forthwith.
Office to draw the decree accordingly.
SD/- JUDGE KS