IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.4328/2018 (MV) BETWEEN:
1. Sri Govindaraju S/o late Channiogarayappa Aged about 51 years 2. Smt. G.Geetha W/o Channigareddy Aged about 31 years All are R/o. Godarahalli Village Thogarigatta post Holavanahalli Hobli Koratagere Taluk Tumakuru District-577 501 .. Appellants (By Sri Sathisha T., Advocate) AND:
1. Sri Narayanamurthy Aged about 31 years R/o No.307, A Sector Yalahanka New Town Bengaluru 2. Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Ltd., No.30, 3rd floor, JNR City Centre Rajaram Mohan Roy Road Sampangi Rama Nagar Bengaluru-560 027.
Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd No.2315/1-2068 ‘B’ Abharam Arcade M.G. Road Tumakuru .. Respondents (By Sri C.R. Ravishankar, Advocate for R2, Notice to R1 – D/W) This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act against the judgment and award dated 07.02.2018 passed in MVC No.167/2017 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge & MACT-XIII, Madhugiri, 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 This appeal filed by the claimants is directed against the judgment and award dated 7.02.2018 passed in MVC No.167/2017 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, MACT XIII, at Madhugiri, whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum Rs.10,50,850/- towards compensation on account of death of late Ashwathareddy, aged about 25 years in a road traffic accident that occurred on 17.12.2016.
2. Though the matter is listed for admission, with the consent of both the leaned counsel, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
3. Both the learned counsel submit that the occurrence of accident as well as coverage of policy of the offending vehicle by the respondent No.2 – Insurance Company is not in dispute and that the appeal is restricted to quantum of compensation awarded in favour of the appellants.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company and perused the material on record.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the notional income of the deceased is to be taken as Rs.7,000/- p.m. In this context, learned counsel invited my attention to the guidelines of the Lok Adalath, which stipulates that in respect of the accident that occurred in the year 2016, notional income is to be taken as Rs.9,500/- p.m. Accordingly, appellant would be entitled to additional enhanced compensation in this regard.
6. It is also contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in not adding 40% towards future prospects as per law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others [(2017) 16 SCC 680]. In view of the undisputed fact that the deceased was aged about 25 years as on the date of the accident.
7. It is also contended that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head of loss filial consortium since the claimants are none other than parents and sister of the deceased.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 – Insurance Company would support the impugned judgment and award.
9. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellants, the Tribunal has committed an error in taking notional income as Rs.7,000/- p.m. instead of 9,500/- p.m. in view of the Lok Adalat guidelines which stipulates that the notional income in respect of the accident that occurred in the year 2016 is to be taken as Rs.9,500/- p.m. The learned counsel is also correct in contending that in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi, 40% should have been added towards future prospects. Accordingly considering 40% to the notional income of Rs.9,500/- p.m. the sum would come to Rs.13,300/-
p.m. By deducting 50% towards his personal expenses, since the deceased was bachelor, sum of Rs. 66,500/- to be reckoned for the purpose of assessing loss of dependency. Accordingly, appellants should be entitled for a total sum of Rs.14,36,400/- towards loss of dependency as hereunder:
Rs.6,650 x 12 x 18 = Rs.14,36,400/-
10. The Tribunal also committed error in not awarding any compensation under the head of loss of filial consortium as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram [2018 ACJ 2782] and followed by the Division Bench of this Court. Accordingly, appellants who are the parents and sister of the deceased Ashwathareddy are entitled for a sum of Rs.30,000/- each towards filial consortium.
Under these circumstances, the compensation payable to the appellants are hereunder:
1 Loss dependency Rs.14,36,400/-
2 Medical Expenses Rs. 2,64,850/-
3 Conventional heads Rs. 30,000/-
4 Parental and filial consortium Rs. 90,000/- Total Rs.18,21,250/-
The Tribunal having awarded Rs.10,50,850/-, the appellants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.7,70,400/- by way of additional enhanced compensation.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, I pass the following:
ORDER i) Appeal is hereby partly allowed.
ii) The judgment and award dated 07.02.2018 passed in MVC No.167/2017 of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, MACT XIII, at Madhugiri, is hereby modified awarding additional enhanced compensation in favour of the appellants in a sum of Rs.7,70,400/- together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization.
Apportionment and disbursement is as per the direction of the Tribunal.
Sd/- JUDGE HR