IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR M.F.A.NO.8597 OF 2018 (MV) BETWEEN 1. SMT. SOWBHAGYA W/O LATE MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, 2. KUMARI BHANUPRIYA, D/O LATE MANJUNATH, AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS, (SINCE APPELLANT NO.2 IS MINOR, REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN HER MOTHER APPELLANT NO.1) BOTH ARE RESIDING AT INDIRA NAGARA, HOSURU, KASABA HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK – 571 438. MANDYA DISTRICT.
3. SMT. SUSHEELAMMA, W/O H C SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 4. H C SHIVANNA, S/O LATE H C CHOWDAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,L BOTH ARE RESIDING AT HOLALU VILLAGE, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 403. (BY SRI. HARSHA S.P., ADVOCATE) AND 1. SRI. VASANTHA S., S/O SHIVU, MAJOR, RESIDENT OF NO.334, BASAVANAGUDI STREET, HOSAHALLI VILLAGE, BELAGOLA HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK – 571 438, MANDYA DISTRICT.
2. THE MANAGER, UNITED INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.1134, DEVAROO MANSION, DRIVER, AMBEDKAR ROAD, CHAMARAJAPURA, MYSURU – 570 001.
…APPELLANTS …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.RAVISH BENNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:23.03.2017, PASSED IN MVC NO.628/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, SRIRANGAPATNA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This appeal has been filed by the appellants- claimants aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award dated 23.03.2017 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Srirangapatna in MVC.No.628/2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’ for short) whereby the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation in a sum of Rs.11,70,000/- in favour of the appellant together with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization.
2. Though the matter is listed for orders, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
3. Both the counsels submit that the occurrence of accident as well as the coverage of the policy of the offending vehicle by the Insurance Company is not in dispute and this appeal is restricted to quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant submits that the Tribunal committed an error in taking notional income of the appellant-claimant as Rs.7,000/-
p.m. instead of Rs.9,500/- p.m. as per the Lok Adalat guidelines.
5. Further, the Tribunal committed an error in not adding 40% towards future prospects as held by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited V. Pranay Sethi and Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. It is therefore contended that the appellant-claimant would be entitled to additional compensation under the head ‘loss of dependency’.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance company would support the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
In addition, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the compensation in sums of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.25,000/- under the heads ‘loss of love and loss of affection, estate and parental guidance’ and ‘funeral expenses’ which is awarded by the Tribunal is highly excessive and the same requires reduction by reworking the compensation appropriately.
7. I have given my careful consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
8. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant that the Tribunal committed an error in taking the notional income of the appellant- claimant as Rs.7,000/- p.m. instead of Rs.9,500/- p.m. So also the Tribunal committed an error in not adding 40% towards future prospects in view of the undisputed fact that the deceased was aged about 39 years as on the date of accident as held by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi’s Case stated supra. Accordingly, by adding 40% towards notional income of Rs.9,500/-, the income would come to Rs.13,300/-. Since the appellants-claimants are four in number, one-fourth would have to be deducted and a sum of Rs.9,975/- would have to be reckoned for the purpose of assessing ‘loss of dependency. Under these circumstances, the appellants-claimants are entitled to a total sum of Rs.17,95,500/- towards ‘loss of dependency’ as hereunder:
9,975x12x15= Rs.17,95,500/-
9. Learned counsel for the respondent – Insurance Company is correct in submitting that the Tribunal has awarded excess compensation under conventional heads and the same requires reworking by this Court.
10. Accordingly, in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd. V. Nanu Ram reported in 2018 SCC online SC 1546, and reiterated by the Division Bench of this Court in MFA No. 1100/2019 c/w MFA No.663/2019 dated 12.07.2019 and in MFA No.879/2014 dated 27.08.2019, the compensation awarded in favour of the appellants-claimants has to be reworked out as hereunder:
11. The Tribunal having awarded a sum of Rs.11,70,000/- the appellants-claimants would be entitled to additional sum of Rs.8,15,500/- (Rs.19,85,500/- - Rs.11,70,000/-) by way of additional enhanced compensation together with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the realization.
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I pass the following order:-
(i) The appeal is partly allowed.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 23.03.2017 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Srirangapatna in MVC.No.628/2016 is hereby modified.
(iii) The appellant-claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.8,15,500/- which shall carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.
(iv) The apportionment and disbursement to be done as per the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
Sd/- JUDGE SSD