IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. SREENIVASE GOWDA M.F.A.No.6734/2013 & M.F.A No.6735/2013 (MV) IN M.F.A.No.6734 OF 2013 BETWEEN:
1. SMT.REVATHI. B, W/O LATE P. BABU, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, 2. KUM. POOJA, D/O LATE P. BABU, AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS, 3. KUM. SUJA, D/O LATE P. BABU, AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS, APPELLANTS 2 AND 3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT. REVATHI. B.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.215, 7TH CROSS, 7TH MAIN ROAD, M.V. GARDEN, ULSOOR, BENGALURU-560 008. … APPELLANTS (BY SRI. GURUDEV PRASAD. K.T, ADV.) AND:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BMTC, K.H. ROAD, SHANTINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027.
2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, NO.40, 1ST FLOOR, LAKSHMI COMPLEX, OPP. VANIVILAS HOSPITAL, K.R. ROAD, FORT, BENGALURU-560 002.
REPTD. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER.
3. SRI. PAUL RAJ, S/O SRI. PANJAMANI, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT NO.276, GANDHIGRAM, 3RD CROSS, NEW POTTERY TOWN, BENSON TOWN, BENGALURU-560 046. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI D. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADV. FOR R1; SRI. JANARDHANA REDDY, ADV. FOR R2; NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.03.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.6187/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE 5TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, 24TH ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN M.F.A.No.6735 OF 2013 BETWEEN:
1. SMT.REVATHI. B, W/O LATE P. BABU, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, 2. KUM. POOJA, D/O LATE P. BABU, AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS, 3. KUM. SUJA, D/O LATE P. BABU, AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS, APPELLANTS 2 AND 3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT. REVATHI. B.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.215, 7TH CROSS, 7TH MAIN ROAD, M.V. GARDEN, ULSOOR, BENGALURU-560 008. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. GURUDEV PRASAD. K.T, ADV.) AND:
1. SMT. VELANGINI MARY, W/O LATE BABU. P, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, 2. KUM. NANCY MARY, D/O LATE BABU. P, AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS, 3. JOHN PAUL, S/O LATE BABU. P, AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS, 4TH PETITIONER SINCE DEAD NOT MADE AS THE PARTY IN THE APPEAL.
RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 ARE MINORS REPTD. BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTH SMT. VELANGINI MARY.
4. SRI. PAUL RAJ, S/O LATE PANJAMANI, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT NO.276, 3RD CROSS, POTTERY TOWN, GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 046.
5. MANAGING DIRECTOR, BMTC, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027.
6. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, CHICKPET, BENGALURU-560 049.
REPTD. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. D. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADV. FOR R5; SRI. B.A. RAMAKRISHNA, ADV. FOR R6; R2 & R3 MINORS REP. BY R1;
NOTICE TO R1 & R4 DISPENSED WITH) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.03.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.7427/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE 5TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXIV ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T As both the appeals arise out of the same road traffic accident, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. Perused the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
2. The first wife of deceased-P. Babu and her minor children filed a claim petition in MVC No.6187/2010 before MACT, Bengaluru and the second wife, her minor children and parents of deceased filed another claim petition in MVC No.7427/2010 before MACT Bangalore seeking compensation from the owner and insurer of the BMTC bus. The Tribunal clubbed both the claim petitions and after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, by impugned common judgment disposed of both the petitions by awarding compensation to first wife and her children and to the children of second wife and mother of the deceased. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the first wife and her children (claimants in MVC No.6187/10) have preferred MFA No.6734/2013 seeking enhancement of compensation and they have also preferred MFA 6735/2013 challenging the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.7427/2010 awarding compensation to the children of second wife and mother of the deceased.
3. As there is no dispute regarding death of Babu in a road traffic accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of a BMTC bus by its driver, the points that arise for consideration in both the appeals are;
(i) Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for enhancement?
(ii) Whether compensation awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the children of second wife and mother of the deceased is just and proper?
4. Claimants in support of their
deceased at Ex.PW14 and have examined the first claimant in MVC No.6187/2010 (first wife of the deceased) as PW1 and the first claimant in MVCNo.7427/2010 (second wife of the deceased) was examined as RW1, but they have not examined the owner of the car under whom deceased claims to have working as car driver. Therefore, considering the age of deceased as 30 years, year of accident as 2010 and his avocation as daily wager, his income could be assessed at Rs.6,000/- per month as against Rs.4,000/- assessed by the Tribunal. Since the earnings of the deceased is not proved and established, nothing can be added to the said income of the deceased towards future prospectus. The multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased is ‘17’. The claimants are first wife, her minor children, the second wife, her minor children and mother of the deceased, totally there are 8 persons. Even after excluding the second wife and father of the deceased as non dependent LR, there are six dependent claimants. Therefore 1/5th of the income of the deceased deducted by the Tribunal towards his personal expenses and taking 4/5th of the income as his contribution towards his family is sound and proper, so loss of dependency works out to Rs.9,79,200/- (6,000 x 12 x 17 x 4/5) and it is awarded as against Rs.6,52,800/- awarded by the Tribunal. In addition to that a sum of Rs.40,000/- is awarded to the first wife of the deceased towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- is awarded to the minor children and mother of deceased towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses and in all a sum of Rs.70,000/- is awarded under conventional heads.
5. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is re-assessed as under:-
LESS: Compensation awarded by the Tribunal 6,77,800 BALANCE 3,71,400 Regarding point No.2; As already stated, first wife of deceased and her two minor children filed a claim petition in MVC No.6187/2010 seeking compensation from BMTC and insurer and the second wife, her minor children and parents of deceased together filed another claim petition in MVC No.7427/2010 seeking compensation from BMTC and insurer of the BMTC. The Tribunal rightly awarded compensation in favour of the first wife, her minor children and minor children of second wife (*) and rightly held that the second wife and father of the deceased are not entitled for compensation. I have carefully gone through the said finding of the Tribunal and do not see any illegality warranting interference. Point No.2 is answered accordingly.
6. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed-in- part. The judgment and award dated 06.03.3013 in MVC No.6187/2010 & MVC No.7427/2010 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal & V * Deleted vide Court order dated 06.09.2019 Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru are modified. The first wife, her children and children of second wife (*) are entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.3,71,400/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation.
7. The Insurer of the BMTC is directed to deposit the additional compensation amount together with interest within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The apportionment deposit and release of additional compensation amount amongst the first wife, her minor children, minor children of second wife and (*) shall be in the ratio of the award of the Tribunal.
Sd/- JUDGE KLY/ * Deleted vide Court order dated 06.09.2019