IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT M.F.A.No.6193/2014 [MV] BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SARVAMANGALA W/O LATE SRIRAMULU AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 2. MR.MADHUSUDHANA S/O LATE SRIRAMULU AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS BOTH RESIDING AT BUKKAPATNA VILLAGE SIRA TALUK NOW RESIDING AT BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE TUMKUR TOWN.
...APPELLANTS (BY SRI.RAMESH K R, ADV.) AND:
1. SRI NAGARAJU S/O KARIYANNA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS RESIDING AT BRAHMASANDRA VILLAGE KALLAMBELLA HOBLI SIRA TALUK-572137.
2. THE MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR JAYADEVA COMPLEX B.H.ROAD, TUMKUR CITY-572101.
(BY SRI.P.S. JAGADEESH, ADV. FOR SRI P B RAJU, ADV. FOR R2 V/O DT:31.01.2015, NOTICE TO R1 D/W) …RESPONDENTS THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.12.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.1145/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, 4TH MACT, TUMKUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS M.F.A COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T This is a claimants' appeal seeking enhancement of compensation not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded under the judgment and award dated 26.12.2013 passed in MVC No.1145/2011 on the file of III Additional District Judge and IV MACT, Tumkur.
2. Claimants are wife and son of one deceased Sriramulu. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the death of one Sriramulu. It is stated that on 29.07.2011 when the deceased was returning from Bukkapatna Bus Stand towards his house on the extreme end of the left side of the road, a Hero Honda Splendor Motor Bike bearing No.KA.06.EF.9395 came in high speed, rash and negligent manner and dashed to the deceased from backside, due to the impact the deceased sustained grievous injuries on his head and all over the body and while taking treatment at NIMHANS on 30.07.2011 he succumbed to the injuries. It is stated that he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by working as a Village Accountant and also by doing agricultural work. He was aged 40 years as on the date of accident.
3. On issuance of summons respondents 1 and 2 appeared before the Tribunal and filed their separate written statement. Respondent No.1 denied the claim petition averments and stated that the compensation claimed is highly exorbitant. He further stated that the vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent and the policy was in force as on the date of accident. Respondent No.2 denied the contention of the claim petition and also contended that the policy was not in force as on the date of accident. Claimant No.1 examined herself as PW.1 and got marked the documents Exs.P1 to P8. Respondents have not led any evidence. The Tribunal on appreciating the material on record awarded total compensation of Rs.8,12,000/- along with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization on the following heads :-
a. Towards loss of dependency 7,87,020/-
b. Towards funeral expenses including transportation charges of the dead body 15,000/-
c. Towards loss of love and affection 10,000/-
Total Rs.8,12,000/-
4. While awarding the above compensation the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.7,567/- per month based on Ex.P7 - the salary certificate. Not being satisfied with quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants/claimants are in appeal before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the 2nd respondent - Insurance Company. Perused the entire material on record.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the Tribunal committed an error in not awarding any compensation on the head of ‘future prospects’. The deceased was having permanent employment and as such the claimants would be entitled for adding 30% of the assessed income towards future prospects. It is his further submission that the tribunal has awarded only Rs.25,000/- on conventional heads, whereas the claimants would be entitled to Rs.70,000/- on conventional heads, thus he prays for enhancement of compensation.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent - Insurer submits that the Tribunal has awarded just compensation which needs no interference. He further submits that the Tribunal has taken the age of the deceased as 46 years and the claimants would be entitled to only 30% of the assessed income towards future prospects. Thus he prays for passing appropriate orders.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, the points that arise for consideration is as to:-
a. Whether the claimants would be entitled for compensation on the head of future prospects and if YES at what rate ?
b. Whether the claimants would entitled for enhancement of compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case ?
9. Both the above points are answered in the affirmative for the following reasons :-
The accident occurred on 29.07.2011 involving Hero Honda Splendor Motor Bike bearing No.KA-06-EF-9395 and the accidental death of one Sriramulu is not in dispute in this appeal. The claimants’ appeal is for enhancement of compensation. Claimants have placed on record Ex.P7 - the salary certificate to establish the monthly income of the deceased. It is stated that the deceased was working as a Village Accountant, drawing salary of Rs.7,567/- per month. The Tribunal considering Ex.P7 has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.7,567/- per month, which the claimants have accepted. The grievance of the claimants is with regard to non-awarding compensation on the head of ‘future prospects’. Even the post mortem report states that the deceased was aged 40 years as on the date of accident. But the Tribunal taking note of the age of the 1st claimant - wife of the deceased has determined the age of the deceased at 46 years, which needs no interference. If the age of the deceased is taken at 46 years the claimants would be entitled for adding 30% of the assessed income towards future prospects. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v/s PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 has held wherever the deceased was having permanent employment and was aged above 40 years and below 50 years, the claimants would be entitled for adding 30% of the assessed income towards future prospects. The claimants are wife and son of the deceased Sriramulu. The claimants would be entitled to Rs.70,000/- towards conventional heads in terms of the decision in PRANAY SETHI cited supra, but the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.25,000/- on conventional heads. Thus the claimants would be entitled to Rs.70,000/- on conventional heads as against Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Thus the claimants would be entitled to modified compensation on the following heads :-
a. Loss of dependency including Future Prospects Rs.7,567/- + 30% = Rs.9,837/-
Rs.9,837/- less 1/3 (Rs.3,279/-)
10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award is modified to the above extent. The claimants would be entitled to modified compensation of Rs.10,93,048/- as against Rs.8,12,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. Apportionment and deposit would as ordered by the Tribunal.
Sd/- JUDGE NG*CT:bms