IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT M.F.A.NO.5500 OF 2014 (MV) BETWEEN 1. Sri. Thimmegowda, Son of late Sonna Thimmappa, Aged about 56 years, Residing at Sagarasanahalli Village, Bhattalahalli Post, Kamasamudram Hobli, Bangarapet Taluk, Kolar District.
2. Smt. Narayanamma, Wife of Thimmegowda, Aged about 49 years, Residing at Sagarasanahalli Village, Bhattalahalli Post, Kamasamudram Hobli, Bangarapet Taluk, Kolar District.
3. Miss. Geetha, Daughter of Thimmegowda, Aged about 24 years, Residing at Sagarasanahalli Village, Bhattalahalli Post, Kamasamudram Hobli, Bangarapet Taluk, Kolar District.
(By Sri.P.M.Siddamallappa, Advocate) AND 1. Sri. Gopalakrishna, Father Name not known to Appellants.
Aged about 55 years, Residing at No.4, Durgadevi Nilaya, 3rd Main, I Block, Ayyappanagar, K.R.Puram, Bangalore.
2. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, C.B.O. II, No.21, Mission Road, Subbaiah Circle, Bangalore – 560 027.
(By Sri.M.U.Poonacha, Advocate for R2; R1-Notice dispensed with vide order dated 02.01.2017) ... Appellants ... Respondents This M.F.A. is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act against the Judgment and Award dated 26.03.2014 passed in MVC No.196/2008 on the file of the 14th Additional Judge, MACT, Court of Small Causes, 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 made the following:
JUDGMENT The claimants – appellants are in appeal under Section 173(1) of the M.V.Act, aggrieved by the quantum of compensation and also with regard to liability under the judgment and award dated 26.03.2014 passed in MVC No.196/2008 on the file of the 14th Additional Judge, MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.
2. The appellants – claimants, parents and younger sister of the deceased filed claim petition under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation for the death of Srinivasamurthy @ Seena in a road traffic accident. On 24.04.2007 when the deceased Srinivasamurthy was crossing the road, a Tata Sumo bearing registration No. KA-03-B-4964 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased, due to which he sustained injuries and succumbed to the said injuries. It is stated that the claimant was working as a coolie at HAL, Bangalore, and was earning a sum of Rs.3,300/- per month.
3. Respondent No.2 - Insurance Co. filed its objections denying the claim averments. It is also stated that the accident occurred only due to sole negligence on the part of the deceased. It is also stated that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident.
4. Claimant No.1 examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked documents – Exs.P.1 to P.9. On behalf of the Insurnace Co., an official was examined as R.W.1 and documents – Exs.R.1 to R.7 were marked.
5. The Tribunal initially passed judgment and award dated 13.11.2009. Aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Co. filed appeal before this Court in MFA 3002/2010. This Court remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. After remand, by impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,16,500/- to the claimants. Claimants not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and also against the fastening of the liability on the owner of the offending vehicle are before this Court.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Counsel for respondent No.2 – Insurance Co. and perused the appeal papers.
7. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal committed an error in taking the age of the mother to determine the multiplier and it ought to have taken the age of the deceased to determine the multiplier to arrive at the `loss of dependency’. It is his further submission, the liability has been fastened on respondent No.1 – owner of the offending vehicle on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle had no licence to drive particular vehicle as on the date of accident, though he had licence to drive LMV. It is his submission that the said contention is no more available for the respondent – Insurance Co. in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in AIR 2017 SC 3668.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent – Insurance Co. would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and needs no interference by this Court in this appeal.
9. Having heard the learned counsel and on perusal of the material on record, the following two questions arise for consideration in this appeal :
i) Whether the Tribunal is justified in fastening the liability on the first respondent – owner of the offending vehicle ?
ii) Whether the Tribunal is justified in taking the age of the mother of the deceased for determining multiplier ?
Answer to both the questions is in the negative for the following reasons :
10. The accident involving Tata Sumo bearing registration No. KA-03-B-4964 and the accidental death of Srinivasamurthy @ Seena is not in dispute in this appeal.
11. The appeal is filed by the appellants – claimants for enhancement of compensation and aggrieved by the fastening of liability on the owner of the offending vehicle. The Insurance Co. had contended that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving licence to drive the transport vehicle as on the date of the accident, even though he had LMV driving licence. Ex.R.6 is the certified copy of the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle, which indicates that the driver had LMV licence. But there was no endorsement to drive transport vehicle. The said contention is no more res integra, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan’s case. Hence, the second respondent – Insurance Co. is directed to deposit the compensation amount, as determined by the Tribunal, with liberty to recover it from the first respondent – owner of the offending vehicle.
12. The deceased was aged 20 years as on the date of the accident. The Tribunal has taken the age of the younger parent i.e. the mother, for determination of multiplier. It is settled law, as on this date, that to determine the multiplier, the age of the deceased have to be taken. In this case, if the age of the deceased is taken, the multiplier would be `18’. Accordingly, for the purpose of computing compensation under the head of `loss of dependency’, multiplier of `18’ has to be taken. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for a compensation of Rs.4,32,000/- under the head of `loss of dependency’ as follows :
Rs.3,000/- less 1/3 = Rs.2,000/- x 12 x 18 Further the claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.5,000/- under the head of `loss of estate’ and `funeral expenses’. Thus, the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.4,37,000/- as against Rs.3,16,500/- awarded by the Tribunal.
13. Thus, claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.1,20,500/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, from the date of claim petition till its realization.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.
Sd/- JUDGE Mgn/-