IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT M.F.A.NO.3121 OF 2014 (MV) BETWEEN 1. Sri H. Rangaswamy S/o Sri Hanumanthappa, Aged about 37 years, 2. Smt. R. Annapoornamma W/o Sri H. Rangawamy, Aged about 36 years, Both are Permanent residents of:
Adavi Ramajogihalli, Sondekere post, Imangla Hobali, Hiriyur Tq., Chitradurga District-577 501. ... Appellants (By Sri Bhootaiah. R, Advocate) AND 1. Cholamangalam M.S. General Insurance Co., Ltd., Dare House, No.2, NSC Bose Road, Chennai-600 001.
2. Sri Manjunath S/o Thimmanna, R/o Dasana Malige, Imangla Post, Hiriyur Tq., Chitradurga District-577 501. ... Respondents (By Sri B. Pradeep, Advocate for R1; Notice to R2 is d/w v/o dated 19.01.2015) This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of M.V.Act against the judgment and award dated 06.11.2013 passed in MVC.No.71/2013 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Member, Additional MACT, Hiriyur, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
This MFA is coming on for Admission, this day, the court made the following:
J U D G M E N T The claimants are in appeal under Section 173 (1) of Motor Vehicles Act, not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the judgment and award dated 06.11.2013 in M.V.C. No.70/2013 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Hiriyur.
2. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the death of one R. Akshitha, daughter of the claimants in a road traffic accident occurred on 19.10.2012.
3. It is stated that on 19.10.2012, when the deceased along with others while returning from Coolie work in a Auto Rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-16-B-4083, the driver of the said auto rickshaw drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed. Due to which, he lost his control over the auto rickshaw and tilted down and due to which, the deceased Akshitha sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. It is stated that the deceased was aged 18 years as on the date of accident and she was earning Rs.6,000/- per month by doing Coolie work and also from flower vending business.
4. On issuance of notice, respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared before the Tribunal and filed their statement of objection independently and denied the claim petition averments. Respondent No.1 - Insurance Company contended that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident. Further submitted that there is violation of permit condition.
5. Claimant No.1 - father of the deceased examined himself as PW.2 and got marked eight documents as Exs.P.1 to P.8. Respondent No.2 examined RW.1 and marked Ex.R.1 - Policy Copy.
6. The Tribunal on appreciating the material placed on record, awarded total compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants are before this Court in this appeal.
7. Heard the learned counsels for the parties. Perused the material on record.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the Tribunal committed an error in awarding total Global Compensation at Rs.1,50,000/- without awarding and assessing compensation on the head of ‘Loss of Dependency’. Learned counsel submits that the claimants have stated that the deceased was doing Coolie work and flower vending business and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. The Tribunal only on the ground that there is no material to show the exact income of the deceased, awarded Global Compensation at Rs.1,50,000/-, which is wholly erroneous. He further submits that the evidence of PW.1 and Ex.P.1 - FIR would establish that the deceased was working as Coolie. Therefore, he submits that her income to be assessed and appellants would be entitled for compensation on the head of ‘Loss of Dependency’.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just compensation which needs no interference. Further he submits that the deceased was aged 18 years and there is no clear material to indicate that the deceased was working as Coolie and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. As such, the Tribunal rightly awarded Global Compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- which needs no interference.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, the only point that would arise for consideration is as to whether the claimants would be entitled for enhanced compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Answer to the above point would be in the affirmative for the following reasons.
11. The accident occurred on 19.10.2012 involving auto rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-16-B-4083 and the accidental death of one Akshitha are not in dispute in this appeal. The appeal is for enhancement of compensation by the claimants. The claimants state that the deceased was doing Coolie work from which she was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. PW.2 – Father of the deceased has stated that the deceased was the only daughter and she was doing Coolie work and flower vending business, earning Rs.6,000/- per month. It is also stated by PW.2 that the deceased was contributing all her income for running the family. In the cross-examination, PW.2 categorically stated that his family was entirely dependent on the income of the deceased and further he has stated in his cross-examination that the deceased studied 8th standard.
Further, Ex.P.1 - FIR, statement of one Sarojamma who was co-passenger of the deceased in the auto rickshaw states that they had been to Palavvanahalli Village for Coolie work, while coming back from Palavvanahalli Village, they came in one auto rickshaw bearing Reg. No.KA-16-B-4083 and due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto rickshaw, the accident had taken place. When there is evidence on record to say that the deceased was working as Coolie and she was earning Rs.6,000/- per month, the Tribunal could not have given a finding that there is no material to establish the income of the deceased. If the notional income taken by the Lok Adalath, it would be more than Rs.6,000/- per month. Thus, from the evidence of PW.2 - Father of the deceased and the statement of one Sarojamma which is on record and Ex.P.1 - FIR, I am of the considered view that the deceased was working as Coolie and her income could be notionally assessed at Rs.6,000/- as claimed by PW.2, the claimant herein. As the income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.6,000/- per month, the claimants would be entitled for ‘Future Prospects’ on the assessed income. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, has laid down that the claimants would be entitled for adding 40% of the assessed income towards ‘Future Prospects’ wherever the deceased was below 40 years of age. In the instant case, the deceased was aged 18 years and as such, the claimants would be entitled for adding 40% of the assessed income towards ‘Future Prospects’. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for the following modified compensation.
12. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for total compensation of Rs.9,37,200/- as against Rs.1,50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.
The judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to the above extent. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.
Sd/- JUDGE HA/-