IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.266 OF 2017 (MV-D) BETWEEN:
1. SMT SAROJAMMA, W/O LATE RUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
2. R SHOBHA, D/O LATE RUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT:
NO 1011, S J M NAGARA, KONDAJJI ROAD, DAVANAGERE. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI SHRIPAD V SHASTRI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD., MVC HUB KRISHI BHAVAN, HUDSON CIRCLE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE, POLICY ISSUED BY ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT SHIVAMANGALA BLDG., CHANNAGIRI ROAD, BHADRAVATHI SHIMOGA, (POLICY NO 2404023114 P 100974736 VALID FROM 12.05.2014 TO 11.05.2015) 2. M N HARISH, S/O M NAGARAJ, R/AT NO 8155/17, 3RD MAIN, 3RD CROSS, VIVEKANANDA BADAVANE, DAVANAGERE – 577217. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI A RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1, NOTICE TO R2 DISPENSED WITH) ***** THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 04.10.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.1090/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, PRINCIPAL MACT, BANGALORE (SCCH-1), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Though the appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of the counsels it is taken up for final disposal.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents.
3. There is no dispute with regard to the occurrence of the accident or identity of the offending vehicle or the manner in which the accident has occurred. The appeal is canvassed on the short ground that the trial Court has erred in adopting and fixing the notional income at Rs.7,000/- in respect of an accident and claim that arose in 2015. It is submitted that even in the Lok Adalaths the notional income adopted is at the rate of Rs.8,500/- to Rs.9,000/-.
4. He would also submit that the tribunal has erred in deducting 50% and that in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the tribunal was bound to deduct 1/3rd only.
5. There is no dispute with regard to the age of the deceased or the multiplier adopted. In that view of the mater, taking into consideration the fact that the notional income adopted by the Lok Adalaths and by this Court is about Rs.8,500/- to Rs.9,000/-, this Court is of the opinion that the notional income adopted by the Tribunal is on the lower side and requires to be revised and the notional income of the deceased is fixed at Rs.8,500/-. With regard to the aspect of deduction both the counsels fairly submit that 50% is deducted only in case of bachelors. Accordingly, the deduction shall be at the rate of 1/3rd.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the award of Rs.1,50,000/- under the head of loss of love and affection is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra). The learned counsel is right in contending so. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi’s case has fixed the compensation under the head of loss of consortium at Rs.40,000/-. In view of the above the short point that arises for consideration is whether the sum awarded as compensation is a just and reasonable compensation.
7. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant the amount of Rs.7,000/- adopted as notional income is on the lower side. The prevailing practice is that while fixing the notional income, the Courts in the absence of any material generally adopt the notional income adopted during the Lok Adalaths. The said amount is adopted, in the light of the fact that it represents a figure arrived at after consensus between the claimants and the insurance companies. Hence the appellant is right in contending that the trial Court in the absence of material ought to have adopted the notional income at the rate fixed and adopted during the Lok Adalaths. In that view of the matter, notional income of the deceased is fixed at Rs.8,500/-.
8. In that view of the matter, the first claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.4,76,000/- under the head of loss of dependency. The deceased being aged more than 60 years claimants are not entitled to any additions. The first claimant would be entitled to a total sum of Rs.70,000/- under conventional heads. The second claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- under the head of filial consortium. Thus the claimants would be entitled to total compensation of (Rs.4,76,000/- + Rs.1,10,000/-) Rs.5,86,000/-. The claimants would be entitled to interest on the said sums at the rate awarded by the Tribunal.
9. The disbursement of the compensation awarded shall be in accordance with the directions issued by the tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. Office to draw decree accordingly. The insurer shall deposit the additional compensation and the proportionate interest within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
Sd/- JUDGE ykl