IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. SATYANARAYANA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3744/2013 (MV) BETWEEN:
1. S. SWAPNA W/O LATE S. HARISH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS 2. H. JAYASHREE D/O LATE S HARISH AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS 3. H. USHA D/O LATE S HARISH AGED ABOUT 09 YEARS 4. M. SURAPPA S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 5. VIJAYAMMA W/O M SURAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.781 13TH MAIN, HAL 3RD STAGE KODIHALLY, BANGALORE-560008 THE APPELLANT NOs.2 & 3 ARE MINORS HENCE THEIR MOTHER NATURAL GUARDIAN S.SWAPNA APPELLANT NO.1 IS REPRESENTING THE SAME ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI.R CHANDRASHEKHAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. VIBOR AGARWAL MAJOR S/O K.M AGARWAL M/S KADAMBARI STEEL SUPPLIERS 37/4, C.L LAYOUT, DRC POST BENGALURU-560 029 2. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. PO 2701, NO.72, MISSION ROAD UNITY BUILDINGS, 3RD FLOOR BANGALORE-560027 REP. BY ITS MANAGER.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.A N KRISHNASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
V/O DTD.01.04.2014 NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:01.03.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.59/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE XIX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, MACT AND XLI ACMM, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, SATYANARAYANA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The claimants in MVC.No.59/2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, have come up in this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. The claimants would contend that the husband of the petitioner No.1, met with a road traffic accident on 22.12.2007 at about 8.10 a.m. It is stated that on 22.12.2007, he was riding motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-03-ER-3696 and the accident took place near 8th Main, 9th Cross, J.P.Nagar, Bengaluru, resulting in injuries, which led to his death subsequently. Thereafter, claim petition is filed by the widow, children and parents of deceased S.Harish seeking compensation for his death.
3. In the said proceedings, it was contended that he was working as a Site Supervisor in MFR Constructions on a monthly income of Rs.10,650/-
p.m. However, when the matter went into trial, they have examined PW.2 an authorized representative of MFAR Constructions Private Limited, contending that deceased was employee of said company. Admittedly, the said company is different from the Company in which deceased was working as stated by the claimants. PW.2 has produced a document to show that deceased was paid a sum of Rs.8,285/- p.m. as against alleged income of deceased at Rs.10,650/-
p.m. as referred to in the claim petition. In the salary statement for the month of August 2007, it is shown as if the deceased has worked for all 31 days without taking any break in between, which cannot be believed. In that background, the court below did not believe the documents produced and marked through PW.2 and went ahead to assess the income of the deceased notionally by taking a sum of Rs.4,500/- for an accident which has taken place in the year 2007. when the same is compared to the chart which is prepared by the Legal Services Authority of High Court of Karnataka, where in the absence of proof of income, the income of the deceased is to be considered notionally at Rs.4,500/- for the accident of the year 2008, which is in fact considered by the Tribunal for the death which has taken place in the year 2007 and compensation is accordingly awarded, which appears to be just and proper. Inspite of the compensation awarded being just and proper, the claimants have chosen to prefer this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
4. On going through the material on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the method adopted for awarding compensation is just and proper. However, while awarding compensation a serious error is committed in not considering the future prospects, considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 36 years as on the date of accident for which future prospects ought to have been considered at 40% which is not done. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the compensation which is awarded by the Tribunal is required to be interfered so far as it pertains to awarding of future prospects is concerned. If 40% future prospects is added to Rs.4,500/-, it will come to Rs.6,300/- p.m. From this, 1/4th is required to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and the remaining 3/4th should be considered as loss of dependency to the claimants which works out to Rs.4,725/-. By adopting the multiplier of 15, the compensation payable towards ‘loss of dependency’ would be Rs.8,50,500/- (4,725x12x15) as against Rs.6,07,500/- awarded by the Tribunal.
5. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part in awarding enhanced compensation of Rs.2,43,000/- to the claimants with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit of the entire amount. The enhanced compensation with interest shall be apportioned between the appellants in the same ratio in which the Tribunal has divided the compensation awarded among the claimants.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE CA