IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT M.F.A. NO.7581 OF 2018 (MV) BETWEEN:
1. SAFIA W/O LATE NASEERUDDIN AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, 2. SHAH DILWAR JUNED NIZAMI D/O LATE NASEERUDDIN AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS, 3. MALIKA ASFIA BANU D/O LATE NASEERUDDIN AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS, 4. SHAZIA BANU D/O LATE NASEERUDDIN AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS, APPELLANTS 2 TO 4 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN AND MOTHER 1ST APPELLANT ALL ARE RESIDING AT WARD NO.24, YARABNAGAR, 2ND BLOCK RAMANAGARA - 562 159.
... APPELLANTS (BY SRI.SHANTHARAJ K., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SHIVAKUMAR G SANJJAN S/O GURULINGAPPA AGED MAJOR, R/AT KIRANA BAZAAR ROAD, TALIKOTE TALUK, BIJAPUR DISTRICT – 586 214.
2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED BY ITS MANAGER RVR COMPLEX 1ST FLOOR, OPP. LIC OFFICE, BEHIND KSRTC BUS STAND RAMANAGARA TOWN – 562 159.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.C.SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 28.08.2019) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.07.2018, PASSED IN MVC NO.616/2015, ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, RAMANAGARA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The appellants being the claimants are prosecuting this appeal against the judgment and award dated 27.7.2018, whereby their claim petition in MVC No.616/2015 having been favoured, an award was made for compensation of Rs.10,50,200/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum subject to the usual conditions of apportionment and bank deposit. On service of notice, respondent No.2-insurer having entered appearance through its panel counsel, resists the appeal.
2. The brief facts are:
a) In an accident that happened on 3.10.2015 because of the rash and negligent driving of the offending motor cycle bearing Registration No. KA-28-X-0861, one Mr. Naseeruddin having been knocked down fatally, succumbed to the injuries. His legal representatives i.e., widow and children made a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ramanagar. b) To prove their claim, widow came to be examined as PW1 and in her evidence eight relevant documents were produced and marked as Ex.P.8 to Ex.P.11; these documents comprised of inter alia the police papers, RTO papers and P.M. Report. From the side of the respondents i.e., insurer or owner of the offending vehicle none was examined no any document was got marked.
3. The MACT having adverted to the pleadings of the parties and having weighed the evidentiary material on record has entered the judgment and award that are put in challenge, seeking enhancement of compensation.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the appeal papers, this court is of the considered opinion that MACT is not justified in taking only Rs.7000/- to be the monthly income of the deceased when the Lok Adalth Notional Income Chart for the Accident Year 2014 itself mentions Rs.8500/- to 9,000/- to be the notional monthly income.
5. Ordinarily, it is for the claimants to establish the actual income of the deceased by placing cogent evidence on record. However, when no such evidence is placed on record, it is open to the Tribunals to take into consideration the notional values enlisted in the Lok Adlath Income Chart; no reason is assigned by the Tribunal as to why this has not been done and to that extent the impugned judgment and award suffer from a legal infirmity; be that as it may.
6. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly, the age and occupation of the deceased and the Lok Adalath Notional Income Chart, this Court is of the considered opinion that the notional monthly income of the deceased needs to be upwardly revised from Rs.7000/- to Rs.8250/- inasmuch as the Income Chart is only a guideline and it cannot be acted upon as Euclid’s Theorem as rightly contended by the panel counsel for the insurer.
7. The Apex Court in the case of the National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017(1) SC 450, in JT 25% of the income should be added as future prospects, since the deceased is aged about 42 years; the income is re-fixed accordingly.
8. The learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that since the deceased had a wife and three minor children, the deduction value has to be 1/4th, whereas the MACT has wrongly taken it to be 1/3rd, instead. There is force in this submission and therefore, the deduction value is revised downwardly from 1/3rd to 1/4th and the compensation is reworked as under:
Income now revised at Rs.8,250/- p.m. Add: 25% Future prospects Rs.2,062/- p.m.
Rs.10,312/- p.m.
Less: ¼ Rs. 2,578/-
Rs.7,734/- p.m.
1. Loss of Dependency Rs.7,734 x 12 x 14 12,99,312.00
Total Rs.13,69,312.00 9. The other ground for not acceding to the request for higher compensation than what is opined by this Court is that the MACT has awarded interest at the rate of 7% per annum legally being admissible is 6%.
10. In the above circumstances, this appeal succeeds in part; the impugned judgment & award are modified by enhancing the compensation from Rs.10,50,200/- to Rs.13,69,312/- [Rupees Thirteen Lakh Sixty Nine Thousand Three Hundred and Twelve] only, all other terms and conditions of the award having been left unaltered.
Respondent – Insurer to make good the deficiency before long.
No costs.
PSG Sd/- JUDGE