IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.830 OF 2014 (MV) Between:
1. Sri Gangaraju @ Gangarajappa, S/o. Thimmappa, Aged about 54 years, 2. Smt.Shanthamma, W/o. Gangaraju @ Gangarajappa, Aged about 50 years, Both are r/at Narasapura Village, D Palaya Hobli, Gowribidanur Taluk, Chikkaballapura District, Pin No.562 108. ... Appellants (By Sri.G.V.Narasimha Murthy, Advocate) And:
1. Balakrishna, S/o Narashivappa, Aged Major, R/at Narasapura Village, D.Palaya Hobli, Gowribidanur Taluk, Chikkaballapura District, Pin No.562 108.
2. G.N.Chikkanarayanappa, S/o. Rurappa, Aged Major, R/at Narasapura Village, D.Palaya Hobli, Gowribidanur Taluk, Chikkaballapura District, Pin-562 108.
3. Subbarayappa, S/o. Venkatarayappa, Aged Major, R/at Kammavarapalli, Neeragantapalli Post, Bagepalli Taluk, Chikkaballapura District, Pin No.561 207.
4. The Branch Manager, ICICI Lambard General Insurance Company Limited, Zenith House, Keshavarao Marg, Khade Marg, Mahalakshmi, Mumbai, Maharastra State, Pin-460 004. ... Respondents (R1 and R2 – service of notice is dispensed with as per the order dated 09.01.2015;
R3-Service of notice is dispensed with as per the order dated 04.12.2015; Sri.A.N.Krishnaswamy, Advocate for R4) This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act against the judgment and award dated:22.10.2013 passed in MVC No.54/2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, & CJM, Member, Additional MACT, Chickballapur, 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 matter is listed for admission, the same is taken up for final disposal at the consent of both the learned counsels.
2. Being aggrieved by the inadequacy of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants in MVC No. 54/2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Member, Additional MACT, Chickballapur, have preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 – Insurance Company.
4. The appellants – claimants are the parents of one Suresha. It is the case of the claimants, that on 21.04.2012 when Suresha was traveling in a tractor-trailer bearing registration No. KA-40-T-9852-9853 for attending to the coolie work, the driver of the tractor-trailer drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, on account of which he fell down and the tractor-trailer ran over his body, resulting in Suresha sustaining grievous injuries, and succumbed to the injuries while he was being treated at Bangalore Hospital. It is the further case of the claimants, that the deceased was a bachelor aged about 19 years at the time of accident and he was earning a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month by doing coolie work.
5. A total compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- was claimed by the appellants before the Tribunal. The first appellant examined himself as P.W.1 and Exhibits P.1 to P.16 were marked. The claim petition was contested by respondent No.4 – Insurance Company. However, no evidence was let in.
6. The Tribunal after considering the evidence and material on record, awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,59,000/- under the following heads :
i) Towards loss of dependency Rs.2,34,000/-
ii) Towards love and affection Rs. 20,000/-
iii) Towards funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/-
Total Rs.2,59,000/-
7. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the claimants – appellants, that the deceased was a bachelor aged about 19 years as on the date of accident and the Tribunal has erred in taking the age of the mother of the deceased while choosing the multiplier. He further submits that no compensation is awarded towards loss of future prospects, and even the income taken by the Tribunal is also on the lower side. He further submits that the total compensation awarded is very meager and on the lower side and accordingly, seeks to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 - Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal having considered the oral and documentary evidence on record, awarded just and reasonable compensation and it does not call for any interference and accordingly, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.
9. There is no dispute with regard to the negligence on the part of the driver of the tractor-trailer and also the liability of the insurer to pay the compensation.
10. It is the case of the appellants - claimants, that the deceased was a bachelor aged about 19 years. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased was earning more than Rs.6,000/- per month at the time of the accident. Accordingly, seeks to take the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month instead of Rs.3,000/- per month taken by the Tribunal. However, the pleading of the claimants themselves at the time of filing the claim petition was that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month by doing coolie work. Accordingly, I do not see any error in the reasoning recorded by the Tribunal in this regard.
11. The Tribunal has erred in taking the multiplier as `13’ by taking into consideration the age of the mother of the deceased. The deceased was aged about 19 years at the time of accident. The appropriate multiplier is `18’. Therefore, compensation towards `loss of dependency’ after adding 40% of the income towards future prospects and deducting 50% towards personal expenses, would be Rs.4,53,600/- (Rs.2,100/- x 12 x 18) as against Rs.2,34,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
12. The Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards `love and affection’ and Rs.5,000/- towards `funeral expenses’. Hence, the compensation awarded towards `love and affection’ is enhanced from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.50,000/- and the compensation awarded towards `funeral expenses and other miscellaneous expenses’ is enhanced from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.15,000/-.
13. Hence, the appellants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.5,18,600/- as against Rs.2,59,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER The Appeal is partly allowed.
The judgment and award dated 22.10.2013 passed in MVC No.54/2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, and CJM, Member, Additional MACT, Chickballapur, is hereby modified.
The appellants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.5,18,600/- as against Rs.2,59,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till its deposit.
The respondent No. 4 – Insurance Company, shall deposit the entire amount, within a period of four weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/- JUDGE Mgn/-