IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH M.F.A.NO.9588/2012 (MV) BETWEEN:
SRI. CHOWDAPPA SON OF LATE CHINNAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT CHITTANAHALLI MAJARA DINNUR VILLAGE SUGATUR HOBLI KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT. … APPELLANT (BY SRI. N. GOPALKRISHNA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SMT. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA W/O. LATE V. NAGARAJ MAJOR IN AGE R/AT JODIKRISHNAPURA VILLAGE NARASAPURA POST KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT.
2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED REGIONAL OFFICE 5TH FLOOR, KRUSHI BHAVANA NRUPATUNGA ROAD HUDSON CIRCLE BENGALURU-560 001 BY ITS MANAGER. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. Y.K. SHESHAGIRI ROA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DT.13.08.2015) THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.03.2012 PASSED IN MVC.NO.8024/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE 18TH ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT-4, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T This appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the quantum of compensation awarded in M.V.C.No.8024 of 2010 dated 14.03.2012 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, SCCH-4.
2. Brief facts of the case:
The petitioners have filed the petition under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘the Act’ for short) seeking compensation on account of death of Shabarish in a road traffic accident which was occurred on 29.04.2010 at about 5.00 p.m. The deceased-Shabarish was aged about 19 years.
He was working as ‘Coolie’ and was earning Rs.40,000/- per annum. Due to the death of deceased-Shabarish, the petitioners have lost love and affection and also earning member of the family and have claimed a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.
3. In support of their claim, petitioners examined one witness as P.W.1 and got marked the documents Exs.P1 to P12. On the other hand, the respondents have examined two witnesses as R.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked the documents Exs.R1 to R3. The Court below, after considering both oral and documentary evidence, awarded a compensation of Rs.2,74,500/- with interest at 6% per annum. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award of the tribunal, the appellant/claimant has preferred this appeal.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant questioning the quantum of compensation would contend that the statute under Section 163-A of the Act provides that annual income of the deceased to the maximum to be taken as Rs.40,000/-, whereas the tribunal has taken only an amount of Rs.36,000/- per annum which is meager inspite of claim is Rs.40,000/- it is to be taken as Rs.40,000/-.
5. The other ground urged by the appellant is that, 50% was deducted towards personal expenses whereas, the statute provides that it has to be deducted only 1/3rd. It is also his contention that the tribunal has also committed an error in taking the multiplier as 15, whereas the statute provides that above the age of 15 years but not exceeding 20 years, the multiplier applicable is 16. Hence, the same is to be reconsidered.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant reiterates the grounds urged in the appeal and would contend that deducting 50% of the income towards the personal expenses of the deceased is erroneous and the same is against the statute and the same is to be reconsidered considering the material available on record.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that in view of Sarala Varma’s case, since the deceased is a Bachelor, the tribunal has rightly deducted 50% of the income towards personal expenses while calculating ‘loss of dependancy’ and it does not require any interference. He would further contend that taking the annual income at Rs.40,000/- is the maximum provided in the statute and hence, the tribunal has taken the income at Rs.36,000/- per annum. Therefore, the same also does not require interference of this Court. Accordingly, he submits that there are no grounds to entertain the appeal.
8. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned counsel for the respondents, the points that arise for consideration are:
1. Whether the tribunal has committed an error in not awarding just and reasonable compensation and whether it requires interference of this Court?
2. What order?
Point Nos.1 and 2:
9. Admittedly, the petition is filed under Section 163-A of the Act. The Court below has taken the annual income of the deceased at Rs.36,000/-. The claimants have pleaded in the claim petition that the deceased was earning Rs.40,000/- per annum and he was working as ‘Coolie’. There is no basis for taking the annual income of the deceased as Rs.36,000/-. The statute provides that it has to be taken at Rs.40,000/- per annum and it is a social legislation and the Court has to keep in mind the very object of the statute. Hence, the Court below has committed an error in taking the annual income as Rs.36,000/- instead of Rs.40,000/- and the same requires interference of this Court.
10. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that, in view of the judgment rendered in Sarala Varma’s case, the tribunal has rightly deducted 50% of the income towards personal expenses. The said submission cannot be accepted for the reason that this is a petition under Section 163-A of the Act. The statute provides that 1/3rd of the annual income should be deducted towards personal expenses. The Court cannot traverse beyond the statute and hence, the tribunal ought not to have taken the same at 50%. The principles laid down in the said judgment are not applicable to the case on hand.
11. The other ground urged in the appeal is that the tribunal has erred in taking the multiplier as 15 instead of 16. Under Section 163-A of the Act, the multiplier applicable is 16 and the same ought not to have been taken as 15. Hence, the same requires to be modified.
12. By taking the income of the deceased at Rs.40,000/- per annum, deducting 1/3 towards personal expenses and applying the multiplier as 16, the total income comes to Rs.4,26,672/- (Rs.26,667/-x 16). Apart from that, the claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs.4,500/- on the other heads and it comes to Rs.4,31,172/-.
13. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The judgment and award of the tribunal in M.V.C.No.8024 of 2010 dated 14.03.2012 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, SCCH-4 is modified and an amount of Rs.4,31,172/- is awarded as compensation as against Rs.2,74,500/- awarded by the tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition till deposit.
(iii) The respondent is directed to pay the compensation amount with interest within 8 weeks from today.
(iv) The order of the tribunal in respect of apportionment and depositing the compensation amount in fixed deposit shall remain unaltered.
Sd/- JUDGE ST