IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. L. NARAYANA SWAMY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE M.F.A. NO.2820 OF 2018 (MV) BETWEEN:
1. SARITA BAI W/O. LATE THIPPESH NAIK, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 2. KARTHIKA S/O. LATE THIPPESH NAIK, AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS 3. BHUMIKA BAI D/O. LATE THIPPESH NAIK, AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS, 4. LAKSHMI BAI W/O. LATE SEVA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, THE APPELLANTS NO.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR NEXT FRIEND MOTHER APPELLANT NO.1 ALL ARE R/O. JANUKAL LAMBANIHATTY VILLAGE, HOSADURGA TALUK, NOW R/O BHEEMASAMUDRA VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TALUK - 577 501. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI.R.SHASHIDHARA, ADV.) AND:
1. YARRISWAMY S/O. NAGENDRAPPA, MAJOR, OWNER OF MOTOR CYCLE BEARING NO. KA-29/9622, R/O. BOMMENAHALLI VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TALUK - 577 501.
2. THE MANAGER IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, JCR EXTENSION, CHITRADURGA TOWN - 577 501. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.B.PRADEEP, ADV. FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DTD: 28.03.2019) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:12.01.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.879/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & CJM, CHITRADURGA, 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:
J U D G M E N T For the death of the breadwinner in the road traffic accident that took place on 08th April, 2017 the wife, children and the widowed mother made claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chitradurga. The Tribunal, by its judgment and award dated 12th January, 2018 passed in MVC No.879 of 2017 awarded compensation of Rs.12,49,702/-. Being not satisfied with the compensation awarded, the appellants are before this court, seeking enhancement in the compensation.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants, in the claim petition, claimed that the deceased was hale and health prior to accident was doing carpentry work and agriculture work and was earning Rs.8,00,000/- per annum, the same has been disbelieved by the Tribunal and the Tribunal has taken the income at Rs.9,000/- per month which is very meager. He also submits that the Tribunal has given deduction at one-third which is an error. Hence, he submits to suitably enhance the compensation.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-insurer submits that the Tribunal has awarded reasonable compensation based on the oral and documentary evidence placed before it. Hence, there is no error and there is no ground for interference in this appeal. He prays for dismissal of the appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. Though the appellants have claimed that the deceased was doing carpentry work and was also an agriculturist and was earning Rs.8,00,000/- per annum, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- per month. In the instant case the accident is of the year 2017. With relevance to the accident of the year 2017, this court consistently takes the notional income at Rs.10,000/- and the same is taken in this case also. Further, the Tribunal has given the deduction at one-forth. The family of the deceased consisted of five members including the deceased. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SARLA VARMA v DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION LIMITED reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 for the family consisting of more than five members the deduction should be given at three- forth. Hence, the income would be Rs.10,000/- x 12 x 14 s ¾ which comes to Rs.12,60,000/-, the compensation under the head loss of dependency as against Rs.11,34,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The compensation awarded under the other heads remain undisturbed. The enhanced amount carries interest at the rate as is awarded by the Tribunal. The apportionment also shall be as per the award of the Tribunal.
Appeal is allowed in part.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE lnn