IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR M.F.A.NO.2241 OF 2017(MV) BETWEEN 1. SMT. SOWBHAGYAMMA W/O LATE RANGASWAMY AGED 41 YEARS.
2. CHANDRIKA D/O LATE RANGASWAMY AGED 25 YEARS.
3. ROOPA D/O LATE RANGASWAMY AGED 23 YEARS.
4. K.R.THRIVENI D/O LATE RANGASWAMY AGED 21 YEARS.
5. MANU @ MANJUNATH S/O LATE RANGASWAMY AGED 19 YEARS.
ALL ARE R/O KITTADAKUPPE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 101.
…APPELLANTS (BY SRI.M.B. CHANDRACHOODA, ADVOCATE) AND THE MANAGING DIRECTOR K.S.R.T.C SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 027.
(BY SRI.PHALAKSHAIAH.B,ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 04.10.2016, PASSED IN MVC NO. 1071/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL.MACT-17, AT GUBBI PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This appeal has been filed by the claimant challenging the impugned judgment and award dated 04.10.2016 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge & Addl. MACT-17, at Gubbi (for short ‘the Tribunal’), in M.V.C.No.1071/2014 awarding a sum of Rs.9,73,123/- together with interest at 8% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of deposit on account of the death of the deceased Rangaswamy in a road traffic accident that occurred on 31.12.2013.
2. Though the matter is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
3. Though the matter is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal.
4. 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 are not in dispute and this appeal is restricted to quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal committed an error in taking notional income of the deceased Rangaswamy at Rs.6,000/- p.m., instead of Rs.8,000/- p.m., having regard to the Lok Adalath guidelines which stipulates that in respect of an accident that occurred in the year 2013, the notional income ought to have been taken as Rs.8,000/- p.m. It is also contended that the Tribunal committed an error in not adding 25% of the said notional income since the deceased was aged about 45 years as laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited V. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157. It is therefore contended that the appellants would be entitled to additional compensation under head loss of dependency.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent- KSRTC would support the impugned judgment and award. It is further contended by the learned counsel for Respondent No.2 that the compensation awarded under conventional heads is highly excessive and the same requires to be reduced and just and fair compensation be awarded in favour of the appellants by reworking the compensation. It is also contended that the KSRTC had paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- prior to the claim and the same is liable to be deducted.
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, the Tribunal committed an error in taking the notional income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- p.m., instead of Rs.8,000/- p.m., as per the Lok Adalath guidelines since the accident occurred in the year 2013. According, taking the notional income as Rs.8,000/- p.m., and adding Rs.2,000/- (25%) by way of future prospects and deducting 1/4th from the same, the income for the purpose of assessing loss of dependency comes to Rs.7,500/- p.m. Accordingly, the appellants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.12,60,000/- (7,500/- x 12 x 14) towards loss of dependency.
9. Learned counsel for respondent-KSRTC is correct in contending that the compensation awarded under traditional heads is on the higher side and the same requires to be reworked by awarding just compensation. Under these circumstances, keeping in mind the law laid down by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi’s case supra, Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs.
Nanu Ram & Others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130) as well as the judgment of this Court in M.F.A.No.1100/2019 & connected matter disposed of on 12.06.2019 in awarding compensation towards ‘loss of consortium’. The compensation to be awarded to the appellants is reworked as under:
Thus, the appellants are entitled to a total enhanced compensation of Rs.14,05,000/-.
10. The Tribunal having awarded a sum of Rs.9,73,123/-, the appellants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.4,31,877/- by way of additional enhanced compensation together with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization.
11. In view of the above, I pass the following:
ORDER In view of the aforesaid discussion, I pass the following order:-
(i) The appeal is partly allowed.
(ii) The appellant-claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.4,31,877/- which shall carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.
(iii) The apportionment and disbursement to be done as per the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
Sd/- JUDGE bnv