IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR MFA NO 5426 OF 2015 (M V) BETWEEN 1. SRI A.S. NAGARAJU S/O LATE A. SHANKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 2. SMT VARALAKSHMI W/O A. S. NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS APPELLANTS ARE R/AT NO.112 SOMESHWARA EXTN., DODDABALLAPURA TOWN BANGALORE DISTRICT. ... APPELLANTS AND (BY SRI K. V. NAIK, ADV., FOR SRI SHRIPAD. V. SHASTRI, ADV) THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC, SARIGE BHAVANA KENGAL HANUMANTHAIAH ROAD BANGALORE-27. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI G. SHANKAR GOUD, ADV.) MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:20.1.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.2615/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE 20TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MEMBER, 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 Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. This appeal is preferred by appellants/claimants against the judgment and award dated 20.01.2015 passed by the MACT in MVC No.2615/2013 seeking enhancement of compensation.
3. The factual matrix of the appeal is as under:
It is stated in the claim petition that on 16.02.2013 at about 8.15 p.m deceased Kiran Kumar and Jayanth @ Jayanth Kumar were traveling in motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-51-EB-4639 from Doddabelavangala towards Doddaballapura and the said Kiran Kumar was riding the Motor cycle with moderate speed by observing traffic rules with great care and caution on extreme left side of the road along with pillion rider Jayanth and when he reached near Koogonahalli, gate at that time one KSRTC Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-42-F-83 driven by its driver with high speed in rash and negligent manner causing endanger to human life and property came from the opposite direction and took right turn to go to Koogonahalli without giving any turning signal or indicator and dashed against the said motor cycle and due to the said impact both the rider and pillion rider died on the spot due to the injuries sustained in the accident. It is contended that prior to the accident the deceased Jayanth @ Jayanth Kumar was hale and healthy and had completed SSLC, ITI and B.com and he was working in HGS call center and earning a sum of Rs.12,000/- p.m. On all these grounds, the petitioners filed claim petition seeking compensation.
4. In pursuance to issuance of notice, respondent – KSRTC entered appearance but did not file written statement. Based upon the pleadings, the Tribunal framed issues for consideration of the petition.
5. In order to establish the case, Petitioner No.2 – A.S.Nagaraj was got examined as PW.2 and got marked 25 documents as per Exs.P1 to P25. Respondent – KSRTC did not let any evidence on its behalf. Subsequent to hearing arguments by learned counsel for the petitioners as well as respondent and on evaluation of oral and documentary evidence such as Ex.P3- Mahazar, Ex.P4 – Sketch, Ex.P5- IMV report, Ex.P17-Inquest report, Ex.P18-PM report, Ex.P19-SSE higher education certificate, Ex.P.21 – salary certificate etc., the Tribunal passed the impugned judgment, awarding compensation of Rs.6,17,200/- with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation.
Being not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioners have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation by urging various grounds.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the Tribunal erred in not properly appreciating the evidence on record and has erroneously awarded compensation which is inadequate and the same needs to be enhanced. He contends that the Tribunal erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased which is on the lower side and even though the salary certificate has been produced, the Tribunal has not considered the same.
7. Further, the Tribunal ought to have added 50% towards loss of future prospects to the actual income for the purpose of assessing loss of dependency by following the law laid down by the Apex Court in Rajesh’s case. Further, the Tribunal ought to have considered the age of the deceased instead of age of the parents while adopting the multiplier for the purpose of assessing the loss of dependency. Further, he contends that the Tribunal has failed to award reasonable compensation under the conventional heads. On all these grounds learned counsel for the appellants seeks for intervention of this Court and prays to enhance the compensation.
8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent – KSRTC submitted that the tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence/material on record has rightly assessed the income of the deceased and awarded just and fair compensation, which does not call for interference and prays for dismissal of the appeal.
9. In the backdrop of the contentions taken by the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for KSRTC and on careful evaluation of the materials available on record, it is seen that the claimants being the parents of the deceased are the dependents of the deceased who was aged 25 years at the time of accident. Ex.P.14 is the residency certificate produced by the petitioners regarding the relationship with the deceased, Ex.P24 is the election identity card, Ex.P.19 and P.20 are the SSC marks card of the deceased. Ex.P.21 is the salary pay slip and Ex.P.22 is the final settlement certificate. Relying on Ex.P21 the Tribunal has taken Rs.7,400/- as the monthly salary and multiplier of 13 as per Sarala Verma’s case taking the age of mother of deceased and awarded compensation of Rs.5,77,200/- under the head loss of dependency. But having regard to the avocation of the deceased and Ex.P.21 – salary slip, the monthly income of Rs.7,400/- taken by the Tribunal is on lower side and the same needs to be enhanced to Rs.8000/- per month. Keeping in view the age of deceased, multiplier of 18 has to be taken in this case. In so far as ratio of reliance placed in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Pranay Sethi reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, 40% has to be added to the income of the deceased and as the deceased is Bachelor, 50% has be deducted towards personal expenses. Accordingly, the compensation under the head loss of dependency is calculated as below:
Rs.11,200 x 50% x 12 x 18 - Rs.12,09,600/-
The amount enhanced under this head would be Rs.6,32,400/- (Rs.12,09,600- 5,77,200) 10. In so far as the compensation under loss of love and affection, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- which is on lower side and the same is enhanced to Rs.80,000/- as the claimants are none other than the parents of the deceased who was aged about 25 years at the time of accident and the reciprocity has to be maintained in between them.
11. In so far as funeral and obsequies ceremony and loss of estate, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- each under the said heads. But keeping in view the ratio of reliance in Pranay Sethi’s case an additional sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded under these heads.
12. In view of the discussion made above and with the altered factors, the compensation is re-worked out as under:-
Expenses Loss of estate Total Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 20.01.2015 passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.2615/2013 is hereby modified. The appellants/claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.7,62,400/- with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation.
Respondent-KSRTC shall deposit the enhanced compensation with interest before the tribunal within six 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.
There shall be no order as to the costs. Office to draw the decree accordingly.
SD/- JUDGE DKB