IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR MFA NO 3686 OF 2017(M V) CONNECTED WITH MFA NO 3687OF 2017(M V) MFA NO 5546 OF 2017(M V) MFA NO 5547 OF 2017(M V) MFA NO. 3686 OF 2017 BETWEEN M/S SBI GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., OFFICE AT NATARAJ, 101, 201 AND 301, JUNCTION OF WESTERN EXPRESS HIGHWAY AND ANDHERI KURLA ROAD ANDHERI (EAST) MUMBAI - 400 069 REPRESENTED BY BANGALORE OFFICE: RUKMINI TOWERS NO.3/1, PLATFORM ROAD, SESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE - 560 020 REPRESENTED BY MANAGER. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAVI. S. SAMPRATHI – ADV.,) AND 1. SRI MAREGOWDA S/O LATE CHANNARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 2. SMT. CHANNAMMA W/O MAREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT TAVAREKERE VILLAGE TAVAREKERE HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 562 130.
3. SRI POORAN SINGH MAHENDRA SINGH RANDHAWA FATHER’S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O ROOM NO.1, BLDG NO.C-84, PANCHWATI CHS, SHIRKE COLONY, SEC NO.6, KALAMBOLI NODE, PANVEL, RAIGARH (MH) MAHARASHTRA - 410 218. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI N. R. RANGE GOWDA – ADV., FOR C/R1 & R2; NOTICE TO R-3 DISPENSED WITH VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 22.02.2018) THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:24.12.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.126/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NELAMANGALA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 13,82,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.
MFA NO. 3687 OF 2017 BETWEEN M/S SBI GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., OFFICE AT NATARAJ, 101, 201 AND 301, JUNCTION OF WESTERN EXPRESS HIGHWAY AND ANDHERI KURLA ROAD ANDHERI (EAST) MUMBAI - 400 069 REPRESENTED BY BANGALORE OFFICE: RUKMINI TOWERS NO.3/1, PLATFORM ROAD, SESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE - 560 020 REPRESENTED BY MANAGER. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI RAVI. S. SAMPRATHI- ADVOCATE) AND 1. SMT. ANUSUYAMMA S/O LATE KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, 2. KUM. DIVYA D/O LATE KRISHNAMURHTY AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS 3. KUM. MEGHANA .K D/O LATE KRISHNAMURHTY AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS 4. KUM SHILPA D/O LATE KRISHNAMURHTY AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 ARE MINORS THEY ARE REPRESENTED BY 1ST RESPONDENT AS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN.
5. SMT. JAYAMMA W/O LATE MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS 6. SMT. RAJA LAKSHMI D/O LATE MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT MANCHANABELE PUNARVASATHI COLONY, SEEGEHALLI GATE, DASANAPURA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT - 560114.
7. SRI POORAN SINGH MAHENDRA SINGH RANDHAWA FATHER’S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O ROOM NO.1, BLDG NO.C-84 PANCHWATI CHS, SHIRKE COLONY, SEC NO.6, KALAMBOLI NODE PANVEL, RAIGARH (MH) MAHARASHTRA-410218. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N. R. RANGE GOWDA FOR C/R1 TO R6; R-2 TO R-4 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY R-1; R-7 SERVED) THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:24.12.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO. 127/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NELAMANGALA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.18,58,800/- TOGETHER WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.
MFA NO. 5546 OF 2017 BETWEEN 1. MAREGOWDA S/O LATE CHANNARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 2. CHANNAMMA W/O MAREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT TAVAREKERE VILLAGE TAVAREKERE HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 562 130. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. N. R. RANGE GOWDA - ADVOCATE) AND 1. MR. POORAN SINGH MAHENDRA SINGH RANDHAWA NOW AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT, ROOM NO.1, BLDG NO.C 84, PANCHWATI CHS, SHIRKE COLONY, SEC NO.6, KALAMBOLI NODE, PANVEL, RAIGARH (MH) MAHARASHTRA - 410 218.
2. THE MANAGER SBI GENERAL INSURANCE CO, LTD., OFFICE AT NATRAJ, 101, 201 AND 301, JUNCTION OF WESTERN EXPRESS HIGH WAY AND ANDHERI KURLA ROAD, ANDHERI EAST, MUMBAI-400069. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI RAVI. S. SAMPRATHI-ADVOCATE FOR R-2; NOTICE TO R-1 DISPENSED WITH VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 12.12.2017) THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:24.12.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.126/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NELAMANGALA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
MFA NO. 5547 OF 2017 BETWEEN 1. ANUSUYAMMA W/O LATE KRISHNAMURTHY NOW AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, 2. KUMARI. DIVYA .K D/O LATE KRISHNAMURHTY NOW AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS 3. KUMARI. MEGHANA .K D/O LATE KRISHNAMURHTY NOW AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS 4. KUMARI. SHILPA .K D/O LATE KRISHNAMURHTY NOW AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS 5. JAYAMMA W/O LATE MUNIRAJU NOW AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS 6. RAJA LAKSHMI D/O LATE MUNIRAJU NOW AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS NOTE:- APPELLANTS 2 TO 4 ARE SINCE MINORS REP. BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER I.E., APPELLATN NO.1 ALL ARE RESIDING AT MANCHANABELE PUNARVASATHI COLONY, SEEGEHALLI GATE, DASANAPURA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. RANGE GOWDA N. R. - ADVOCATE ) AND 1. MR. POORAN SINGH MAHENDRA SINGH RANDHAWA NOW AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT, ROOM NO.1, BLDG NO.C 84, PANCHWATI CHS, SHIRKE COLONY, SEC NO.6, KALAMBOLI NODE, PANVEL, RAIGARH (MH) MAHARASHTRA - 410 218.
2. THE MANAGER SBI GENERAL INSURANCE CO, LTD., OFFICE AT NATRAJ, 101, 201 AND 301, JUNCTION OF WESTERN EXPRESS HIGH WAY AND ANDHERI KURLA ROAD, ANDHERI EAST, MUMBAI-400069. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAVI. S. SAMPRATHI - ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R-1 DISPENSED WITH VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 11.02.2019) THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:24.12.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.127/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NELAMANGALA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Though these appeals are listed for admission, with the consent of learned advocates on both sides, the same are heard and disposed of finally.
2. M.F.A.No.3686/2017 and MFA No.3687/2017 are preferred by the appellant/Insurance company against the judgment and award dated 24.12.2016 rendered by the Tribunal in MVC No.126/2014 and 127/2014 respectively, challenging the negligence and also quantum of compensation awarded.
3. M.F.A.No.5546/2017 and MFA No.5547/2017 are preferred by the appellants/claimants against the judgment and award dated 24.12.2016 passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.126/2014 and MVC No.127/2014 respectively, seeking enhancement of compensation.
4. As these appeals arise out of common judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, they are being disposed of by the common judgment.
5. The factual matrix of the appeals are as under:
It is stated in the claim petition that on 14.6.2014 at about 4.30 p.m. the deceased Narasimhamurthy along with his friend Krishnamurthy were traveling in a motor cycle bearing registration No.KA04-ES-1922 from Bangalore to Tumkur via Dabaspet on NH-4. At the relevant point of time, near Kasaba Nijgal in front of the HP Petrol Bunk, a truck/heavy container lorry bearing registration No.MH43-E-6949 coming behind the back of the said motor cycle being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner endangering the human life, hit to the said motor cycle. Due to the said impact, the said Narasimhamurthy and his friend Krishnamurthy fell down from the motor cycle, then the truck ran over the head of the Narasimhamurthy and his friend Krishnamurthy and they both died on the spot. Subsequently, the dead bodies of the deceased were shifted to Dabaspet Government Hospital, wherein post-mortem was conducted. The deceased were the only bread earner of their families. Due to the untimely death of the deceased, the petitioners are put to great hardship and suffering from financial loss. On these grounds, the legal representatives of the deceased persons filed claim petitions before the Tribunal seeking compensation.
6. After institution of the claim petitions, the respondents were issued with the notice. The respondent No.2 – Insurance Company appeared through the counsel and filed written statement resisting the claim petition. Respondent No.1 being the owner of the offending vehicle was placed exparte. Respondent No.2 filed a detailed objection statement denying the averments made in the claim petition and sought for dismissal of the petition. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the issues.
7. In order to establish their claim, 2nd petitioner in MVC No.126/2014 was examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P13. The first petitioner in MVC No.127/2014 was examined as PW.2 and got marked Exs.P14 to P23.
On behalf of the respondents, no one was examined and no documents were marked.
8. On considering the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the Tribunal awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.13,82,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till deposit in MVC No.126/2014 and Rs.18,58,800/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till deposit in MVC No.127/2014. It is this judgment challenged under these appeals by urging various grounds.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants contends that the award passed by the Tribunal is contrary to law and probabilities of the case in so far as the appellants are concerned. The Tribunal has erred in not properly appreciating the evidence on record in proper perspective and the same has resulted in mis-carriage of justice. The Tribunal has committed error in taking the income of the deceased persons at Rs.8,000/- which is on the lower side and the same needs to be enhanced.
Further, the Tribunal has committed error in not adding 50% future prospects of the income of the deceased while calculating loss of dependency in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajesh vs. Rajbeer Sing reported in ACJ 2013 page 1403. Further, he contends that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is also on lower side. On all these grounds, learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals seeks for enhancement of compensation by allowing the appeals.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the insurance company contends that the driver of the offending lorry was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle and the insured vehicle was not holding valid fitness and permit certificate to ply on the public road. He contends that the accident occurred not solely due to the negligence on the part of the offending lorry but the accident took place also due to the negligence on the part of the rider of motor cycle also. Further, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads is on higher side and the same needs to be scaled down. On all these grounds, learned counsel for the insurance company seeks for modification of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal by allowing the appeals filed by him.
11. In the background of the contentions taken by learned counsel for the claimants as well as learned counsel for the insurance company, it is relevant to note that Tribunal has held that the petitioners have proved that deceased Narasimhamurthy and Krishnamurthy died in a road traffic accident that took place on 14.06.2014 at about 4.30 pm near Bengaluru-Tumkur NH-4 Road, near Kasaba Nijgal gate, in front of the HP petrol bunk, Nelamangala due to the rash and negligent driving of the Lorry bearing Reg.No.MH-43-E-6949 by its driver. In this regard, the Tribunal has considered the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 and documentary evidence such as Ex.P1 – FIR, Ex.P2 – spot mahazar, Ex.P3 – Sketch, Ex.P4- inquest report, Ex.P5 – post mortem report, Ex.P6 – IMV report pertaining to death of Narasimhamurthy and Ex.P14-post mortem report, Ex.P15-inquest report pertaining to Krishnamurthy.
12. Petitioners in MVC No.126/2014 are the parents of deceased Narasimhamurthy. They have stated in the evidence that deceased Narasimhamurthy was working as Electrician at M/s. Jayaram Electrials and was earning Rs.12,000/- p.m. and Ex.P10 – notarised copy of SSLC marks card of Narasimhamurthy discloses that he was aged about 32 years. The Tribunal by assessing the notional income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- and applying multiplier of 16 and deducting 1/3 towards personal expenses, calculated the amount under the head loss of dependency at Rs.11,52,000/-. But having regard to the year of accident, the income of the deceased is to be taken at Rs.8,500/- p.m. and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, future prospects is to be added to his income. Accordingly, compensation under the head loss of dependency is re- worked out as under:
13. Further, under the conventional heads, petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- only, as per the ratio of reliance in Pranay Sethi’s case as stated supra.
14. In view of the discussion made above and with the altered factors, the compensation is re-worked out as under:-
Compensation awarded under the heads Loss of dependency Funeral expenses Transportation of dead body Loss of love and affection Total By MACT By this court
Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.11,72,400/- as against Rs.13,82,000/- awarded by the tribunal.
15. In so far as petitioners in MVC No.127/2014 are concerned, they are the wife, children, mother and sister of deceased Krishnamurthy. PW.2 – Anusuyamma being the wife of the deceased, in her evidence has stated that deceased Krishnamurthy was working as Electrician at M/s. Jayaram Electrials and was earning Rs.12,000/-
p.m. and on the basis of Ex.P16 – notarised copy of Election Identity Card the Tribunal held the age of the deceased Krishnamurthy at 33 years. Further, the Tribunal by assessing the notional income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- and applying multiplier of 16 and deducting 1/5 towards personal expenses, calculated the amount under the head loss of dependency at Rs.12,28,800/-. But having regard to the year of accident the income of the deceased is to be taken at Rs.8,500/- p.m. and in view of Pranay Sethi’s case referred to supra, future prospects is to be added to his income. Accordingly, compensation under the head loss of dependency is re-worked out as under:
16. Further, under the conventional heads as per the law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case, the petitioners are not entitled to more than a sum of Rs.70,000/-.
17. In view of the discussion made above and with the altered factors, the compensation is re-worked out as under:-
Compensation awarded under the heads By MACT By this court Loss of dependency 12,28,800 18,27,840 Funeral expenses 25,000 Transportation of dead body 5,000 Loss of love and affection 5,00,000 Loss of consortium 1,00,000 70,000 Total 18,58,800 18,97,840 Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.18,97,840/- as against Rs.18,58,500/- awarded by the tribunal. The enhanced compensation would be Rs.39,340/-
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER MFA No.3686/2017 filed by the appellant-insurance company is allowed in part and MFA No.5546/2017 filed by the claimants is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award in respect of M.V.C.No.126/2014 is modified, reducing the compensation from Rs.13,82,000/- to Rs.11,72,400/-.
MFA No.3687/2017 filed by the appellant-insurance company is dismissed and MFA No.5547/2017 filed by the claimants is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award in respect of M.V.C.No.127/2014 is modified enhancing the compensation from Rs.18,58,509/-** to Rs.18,97,840/-**. The claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.39,340/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation.
**Corrected vide chamber order dated 31.08.2020.
The insurance company shall deposit the entire compensation along with* enhanced compensation with accrued* interest before the Tribunal within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment and on such deposit, the same shall be disbursed to the claimants, on proper identification. However, the impugned judgment and award, in so far as it relates to the rate of interest, apportionment and deposit is concerned, shall remain unaltered.
The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement of compensation in terms of the award.
There shall be no order as to the costs. Office to draw the decree accordingly.
SD/- JUDGE MD/DKB *corrected vide chamber order dated 9.10.2019.