IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. SREENIVASE GOWDA M.F.A.NO.2580 OF 2014 (MV) BETWEEN:
SHIVAKUMAR S/O CHIKKANANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS RESIDENT OF NAVILADEKANAHALLI VILLAGE, MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT 572 132. … APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHANTHARAJ.K, ADV.) AND:
1. M. NARAYANA S/O LATE MANJAIAH AGED MAJOR RESIDING AT ANTHARASANAHALLI BY-PASS TUMKUR 572 106 2. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER TUMKUR BRANCH TUMKUR 572 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.SURYANARAYANA RAO, ADV. FOR R2 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 31.8.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO. 80/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT-XIII, MADHUGIRI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T This appeal is by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, appeal is heard and disposed of finally. Perused the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
3. As there is no dispute regarding death of one Siddalingamma in a road traffic accident occurred on 31.7.2010 due to rash and negligent driving of a Maruthi Krupa bus bearing registration No.KA-01-AB- 209 by its driver and liability of the insurer of the said bus, only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is;
“Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for enhancement?”
4. Sri Shantharaj, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the deceased Siddalingamma was given in marriage to one Chikkananjappa. After the death of her husband she returned to her parent’s place and settled with her younger brother – claimant. Unfortunately she died in the instant road accident and her dead body was handed over to the claimant and he carried out her obsequies ceremonies. According to the claimant whatever she was earning by doing coolie she was giving it to the claimant. The Tribunal without considering this material aspect of the matter has committed an error in awarding meager compensation. Therefore, he prays for allowing the appeal by awarding just and reasonable compensation.
5. Sri K.Suryanarayana Rao, learned counsel appearing for the insurer of the offending bus submits that admittedly deceased Siddalingamma was married to one Chikkananjappa, therefore, claimant who claims to be the younger brother of deceased-Siddalingamma cannot be said to be her dependant, legal heir. Therefore he is not entitled for compensation under the head loss of dependency. However, he fairly submits that if the Court is of the opinion that the compensation of Rs.40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side, it may be enhanced reasonably.
6. The evidence on record shows that deceased Siddalingamma after the death of her husband Chikkananjappa started residing with the claimant, who is her younger brother. As per the police records her dead body was handed over to the appellant/claimant and he carried out the obsequies ceremonies of the deceased. It is the case of the appellant/claimant that she was earning by doing coolie and contributing her earnings towards the welfare of the claimant. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, justice would be met a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- is awarded in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
7. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed-in-part.
The judgment and award dated 31.08.2013 in MVC No.80/2010 passed by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT XIII at Madhugiri is modified. The claimant is entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of realization excluding interest for the delayed period of 127 days.
8. The Insurance Co. is directed to deposit the additional compensation amount together with interest but excluding interest for the delayed period of 127 days within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Out of which, 70% of the amount with proportionate interest is ordered to be invested in FD in the name of the claimant in any Nationalised Bank/Scheduled Bank/Post Office, for a period of three years with a right of option to withdraw interest periodically. Remaining amount with proportionate interest is ordered to be released in favour of the claimant immediately after the deposit.
9. The Tribunal while releasing the remaining amount is also directed to issue FD slip, so as to enable the claimant to withdraw the fixed deposit amount on its maturity, without approaching the Tribunal once again and the Bank is directed to release the FD amount without insisting for any further order from the Tribunal.
No order as to costs.
Sd/- JUDGE KLY/