IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. L. NARAYANA SWAMY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4400 OF 2015 (MV) Between 1. Sardar Ahmed S/o Abdul Majid Aged 50 years R/o No.40, 9th Cross, 6th Main, Pillappa Block, Ganganagar, R.T. Nagar Post Bangalore – 560 032 2. Smt. Naseema W/o Sardar Ahmed Aged about 41 years R/o No.40, 9th Cross, 6th Main, Pillappa Block, Ganganagar, R.T. Nagar Post Bangalore – 560 032 3. Fouziya Anjum D/o Dardar Ahmed Aged about 20 years R/o No.40, 9th Cross, 6th Main, Pillappa Block, Ganganagar, R.T. Nagar Post Bangalore – 560 032 4. Rab Nawaz S/o Sardar Ahmed Aged about 18 years R/o No.40, 9th Cross, 6th Main, Pillappa Block, Ganganagar, R.T. Nagar Post Bangalore – 560 032 (by Shri H.K. Basavaraj, Advocate) And:
1. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. By its Manager No.S-5, 2nd Floor Monarch Chambers Infantry Road Bangalore – 560 001 2. Ramanjaneyulu Reddy Nimmakayala S/o Yerikala Reddy Age major R/o No.2/115-9A3 Maaheswarinagar, Yerriguntla, Cuddapah District Andhra Pradesh, Pin 371 006 …Appellants …Respondents (by Shri H.N. Keshava Prashanth, Advocate for R1; R2, served) This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and award dated 13.04.2015 passed in MVC No.5139/2014 on the file of the VIII Additional Small Cause Judge and XXXIII ACMM, Member, MACT, Bengaluru, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
This appeal is coming on for hearing this day, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE, delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T It was the case of the appellants before the VIII Additional Small Causes Judge and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru that on 14th September 2014 at about 12.45 am when the deceased was riding his motor cycle bearing registration No. RJ 142 OM 5185 near Bettahalasur cross, the offending vehicle, Lorry bearing registration No.AP 04 TT 9699 driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner, struck the two-wheeler from behind, the impact of which the victim fell down and the rear wheel of the lorry ran over him and the injured succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Hence, they made the claim petition before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by its judgment and award dated 13th April 2015 passed in MVC No.5139 of 2014 awarded compensation of Rs.33,95,000/- with interest at 6% per annum. Being not satisfied with the compensation amount, the appellants are before this Court, in this appeal.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the Tribunal the Tribunal has committed an error by awarding lesser compensation. He submits that though there are four claimants, the Tribunal has erred in deducting 50% out of the total income. He also submits that the compensation awarded under the heads love and affection and loss to estate. He further submits that though it was submitted before the Tribunal that the appellants have incurred more than Rs.50,000/- towards funeral and other incidental expenses, the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding only Rs.15,000/- under the head funeral expenses. He submits that the compensation needs to be enhanced. Hence, he prays that this appeal be allowed and the compensation be enhanced suitably.
3. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Insurer submits to dismiss the appeal. He submits that the Tribunal has awarded the compensation based on the oral and documentary evidence placed before it and the same is just and proper. He submits that there is no scope for interference in this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal. Accident is not in dispute. The death of the son and brother of the appellants in the road traffic accident that took place on 14th September 2014 is also not in dispute. Exhibit–P7 is the account extract of the deceased. It has come in evidence that the deceased was an Air Conditioner Technician. Considering the evidence and documentary proof produced, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/- per month which is proper. Out of the income, the Tribunal has deduced 50% towards the personal expenditure of the deceased. The deduction given at 50% out of the total income of the deceased cannot be found fault with. It is necessary to observe here that the father of the deceased was aged 49 years at the time of the accident and considering his age it is to be observed that the deceased cannot be the only earning member of the family. Further, considering the age of the deceased based on the Passport, the Tribunal has adopted multiplier 18 and has awarded compensation of Rs.32,40,000/- under the head loss of dependency. The same is just and proper.
5. It is also to be observed that the Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- to each of the appellants towards love and affection, and Rs.20,000/- each under the head loss of estate. Further, Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal cannot be found fault and there is no scope for interference. Looking at from any angle, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has awarded just compensation and the appellants have not made out any ground for interference in this appeal. The judgment and award dated 13th April 2015 passed in MVC No.5139 of 2014 passed by the Tribunal stands confirmed.
In the result, appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE lnn