IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT M.F.A.NO.952 OF 2015 (MV) BETWEEN:
1. Smt. Shanthamma Aged about 27 years W/o. Late Devaraj 2. Kum. Anu Aged about 11 years D/o. Late Devaraj 3. Kum. Ashwini Aged about 9 years D/o. Late Devaraj 4. Kum. Amoolya Aged about 7 years D/o. Late Devaraj 5. Kum. Arpitha Aged about 5 years D/o. Late Devaraj 6. Smt. Paarvathamma Aged about 42 years W/o. Gangacheluvaiah Mother of deceased Devaraj Appellants 2 to 5 being minor represented by their mother and Natural guardian Smt. Shanthamma 1st appellant herein All are R/at No.203, 1st Main road 7th Cross, Ambedkarnagar Ullala Town Bengaluru – 560 056 Permanent residents of Hosapalya, Epadi Post Kunigal Taluk Tumkur District ... Appellants (By Sri. Krishna Reddy R., Advocate) AND:
1. Reliance General Insurance Co., Ltd., 5th Floor, East Wing M.G. Road Bengaluru – 560 001 By its Manager 2. Mohammed Mansoor S/o. Mohammed Akbar R/o. #15/2, Sarjapura Village Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk Bengaluru – 560 125 3. The Managing Director Karnataka State Transport Corpn Kengal Hanumanthaiah Road Shanthinagar, Bengaluru – 27 4. Venkatesh M.G. S/o. Ranggarasaiah No.75/1 Hanumanthanagowda Palya Yentaganahalli Post Nelamangala Taluk Bengaluru Rural District 5. The Manager Royal Sundaram Allianz Gen. Insurance Co. Ltd.
No.186/7, Ground Floor Ragavendra Complex Opp. Blue Dot Couriers 1st Cross, Hosur Main Road Wilson Garden Bengaluru – 560 027 ... Respondents (By Sri. B. Pradeep, Advocate for R1; Sri. R.S. Dabali, Advocate for R3;
Sri. M. Arun Ponappa, Advocate for R5; R2 & R4 – notice d/w v/o dtd:08.08.2017) This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act against the Judgment and Award dated 14.11.2014 passed in MVC No.5260/2012 on the file of the XV Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Mayohall Unit, MACT, Bengaluru, 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:
JUDGMENT The claimants are before this Court in this appeal not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded under the judgment and award dated 14.11.2014 in M.V.C.No.5260/2012 on the file of the XV Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Mayohall Unit, MACT, Bengaluru.
2. The claimants filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation for the death of one Sri. Devaraj. The claimants are wife, children and mother of the deceased. It is stated that on 03.03.2012, when the deceased being the cleaner of the lorry bearing Registration No.KA-02-AB-6989 was travelling in the said lorry, the head lights of the lorry became dim, the driver and the deceased stopped the said lorry and while repairing the head lights on the left side of the road, driver of the offending lorry bearing Registration No.KA-51-A-1308 drove in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the lorry. Due to the impact, the deceased-cleaner succumbed to the injuries. It is stated that the claimant was earning monthly salary of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.100 as bata per day and he was aged about 35 years as on the date of the accident.
3. On service of summons, the respondents appeared before the Tribunal and filed their statement of objections contending that the deceased has contributed to the accident on his own negligence.
4. The first claimant examined herself as PW.1 and got marked documents Exs.P.1 to P.15, whereas the respondents examined RWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.R1 to R3.
5. The Tribunal, on assessing the material on record taking into consideration Rs.6,000/- per month as income of the deceased awarded total compensation of Rs.10,71,600/- to the claimant with 6% interest per annum on the following heads:-
The claimants not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation are before this Court.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the lower court records.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the income taken by the Tribunal at Rs.6,000/- per month of the deceased is on the lower side, whereas he submits that he was earning Rs.8,000/-
per month as salary and bata. He further submits that the claimants would be entitled for 40% of the income of the deceased on the head of ‘future prospects’, in view of the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v/s Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680 and in the case of Hemaraj v/s Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in (2018) 15 Supreme Court Cases 654.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just compensation, which needs no interference.
9. Having heard learned counsels appearing for both the parties and on perusal of the material on record, the only question which arises for consideration is, whether the claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation?
10. The accident is of the year 2012, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month to determine the compensation, which is on the lower side. This Court and the Lok Adalath, while determining the compensation in Motor Vehicle Accident cases is taking notional income for the accidents of the year 2012 at Rs.7,000/- per month. In the present case also in the absence of any material to indicate the exact income of the claimant, it would be appropriate to take Rs.7,000/- per month as income of the claimant for determination of compensation.
11. The deceased was a cleaner in the lorry and was not having fixed income. As per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v/s Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680 and in the case of Hemaraj v/s Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in (2018) 15 Supreme Court Cases 654, the claimants would be entitled for 40% of the assessed income to be added towards ‘future prospects’, as he was aged less than 40 years.
12. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for the following modified compensation:-
Thus, the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.15,61,200/- as against Rs.10,71,600/- with interest as awarded by the Tribunal.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.
Sd/- JUDGE RB