IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR M.F.A.NO.2323 OF 2017 (MV) BETWEEN 1. SRI ANANDA V.
S/O. SRI VENKATESHAPPA AGED 33 YEARS OCC: COOLIE 2. SMT. ASHA W/O. SRI ANANDA V. AGED 30 YEARS OCC: HOUSE WIFE BOTH ARE RESIDING AT WARD NO.22, PRASHANTH NAGAR KARATEMMA GUDIBIDI DEVANAHALLI BENGALURU (BY SRI. SURESH M.LATUR, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SRI CHANDRAKANTHA N. S/O. SRI NARAYANA SWAMY WARD NO.23, AKKUPETE DEVANAHALLI BENGALURU – 562 110 2. THE MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., …APPELLANTS SHUBHARAM COMPLEX M.G.ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.C.SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE 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: 05.11.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO. 72/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, & JMFC, ADDITIONAL MACT, SIRA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This appeal has been filed by the claimants challenging the impugned judgment and award dated 02.11.2016 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Bengaluru (for short ‘the Tribunal’), in M.V.C.No.1895/2016, awarding a sum of Rs.4,75,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realization on account of death of minor child of the claimants in the fatal road accident on 01.03.2015. The claimants are the parents of the minor child who was aged about 6 years as on the date of the accident.
2. Though the matter is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal.
3. Both the counsel 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. This appeal is restricted to quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. They have not disputed that the child was aged about six years as on the date of the accident. The learned counsel for the appellant submits having regard to law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Kishan Gopal V. Lala reported in 2014(1) SCC 244, the Tribunal committed an error in taking the notional income of the deceased as Rs.25,000/- per annum. It is further contended that if the notional income is taken as Rs.30,000/- per annum as held in Krishna Gopal’s case (stated supra), then the compensation payable under the head ‘Loss of dependency’ comes to Rs.5,10,000/- as against Rs.4,75,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. It is therefore further contended that the appellant would be entitled to the additional sum of Rs.85,000/- under the head ‘Loss of dependency’. He, therefore, requests for enhancement of compensation.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company would supports the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
6. I have given my careful consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
7. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellants, as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in Kishan Gopal’s case (stated supra), in respect of a minor child, the notional income to be taken for the purpose of assessing the loss of dependency is Rs.30,000/- per annum and not Rs.25,000/- per annum, as has been wrongly held by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appellants would be entitled to a total sum of Rs.5,10,000/- under the head ‘loss of dependency’ by applying the formula as stated hereunder:
30,000 x 17 = 5,10,000/-
8. Insofar as the compensation awarded under the other heads are concerned, the same are just and proper and do not warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER (i) The appeal is partly allowed.
(ii) The appellants-claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.85,000/- which shall carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till realization.
(iii) The apportionment and disbursement to be done as per the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
Sd/- JUDGE KTY