IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1037 OF 2011 CONNECTED WITH MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3110 OF 2011 (MV) IN MFA NO.1037 OF 2011:
BETWEEN 1. SRI. UMASHANKAR SINGH SON OF THILAK DHARI SINGH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.
2. SMT. BINDU SINGH WIFE OF UMASHANKAR SINGH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS BOHT ARE RESIDING AT NO. 3/7 SMQ, AIR FORCE STATION, YELAHANKA BENGALURU – 560 063.
... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. L. HARISH KUMAR, ADVOCATE ) AND:
1. SRI. RAMESH SON OF A. RAJU, MAJOR IN AGE RESIDING AT VIDYANAGAR CROSS BETTAHALASUR POST BENGALURU NORTH TALUK.
2. THE MANAGER, ICICI LAMBORD GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., PVR COMPLEX, HOSUR MAIN ROAD MADIWALA BENGALURU.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. C. SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 VIDE ORDER DATED 14.06.2012 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENCED WITH) ) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.08.2010 PASSED IN MVC NO.3060 OF 2009 ON THE FILE OF THE X ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND MEMBER MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO. 3110 OF 2011: BETWEEN M/S ICICI LOMBARD COMPANY LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE SVR COMPLEX 2nd FLOOR, HOSUR MAIN ROAD MADIWALA, BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER LEGAL.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI. B C SHIVANNEGOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. UMASHANKAR SINGH WIFE OF THILAK DHARI SINGH NOW AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
2. SMT. BINDU SINGH WIFE OF UMASHANKAR SINGH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO 3/7, SMQ AIR FORCE STATION YALAHANKA BENGALURU – 63.
3. RAMESH SON OF A. RAJU RESIDING AT VIDYANAGAR CROSS BETTAHALASUR POST BENGALURU NORTH TALUK.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JAMEER BASHA S. M, ADVOCATE FOR R3 SRI. MUNIYAPPA.D, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 6.8.2010 PASSED IN MVC NO.3060 OF 2009 ON THE FILE OF X ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT-16, BENGALURU CITY, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.9,77,740/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALISATION.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, B.M.SHYAM PRASAD J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT These two appeals are filed impugning the judgment and award dated 06.08.2010 insofar as the claim petition in MVC No.3060 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal: MACT - 16, Bengaluru (for short, ‘Tribunal’) whereby, the Tribunal has awarded to the appellants, the parents of the deceased Sourabh Singh @ Kumar Singh, a total compensation in a sum of `9,77,740/- along with the interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the order. The first of the appeals in MFA No.3110 of 2011 is filed by the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle viz., lorry bearing registration No. KA-03-2781 and the other appeal in MFA No.1037 of 2011 is filed by the appellants viz., the claimants in MVC No. 3060 of 2009.
2. The appellants in MFA No.1037 of 2011, who are hereinafter referred to as the claimants, filed the claim petition in MVC No.3060 of 2009 contending that their son, the deceased Sourabh Singh @ Kumar Singh died in a road accident on 02.04.2009. The deceased Sourabh Singh @ Kumar Singh was riding his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-04-EZ-4520 with Jaswanth Singh (whose parents are the claimants in the other clubbed petition in MVC No. 3058/2009 which is also disposed of by the impugned judgment) on the pillion on NH -4 near ITC factory junction, Bengaluru when the offending vehicle, entering NH 4 from an approach road, hit the motorcycle. The deceased Sourabh Singh @ Kumar Singh succumbed to the injuries suffered in the accident. The deceased Sourabh Singh @ Kumar Singh, a mechanical engineer, was employed with M/s. HTMT (Hinduja Group) Global Solutions Limited. He was drawing a salary of `15,000/-
per month, and in the demise of their son, the claimants have not only lost their son but also are deprived of dependency.
3. The owner of the offending vehicle and the Insurer, who were arrayed as party respondents, upon service of notice of the claim petition, entered appearance and filed their respective objection statements. The respondents did not dispute the accident. However, they contended that the accident was a result of rash and negligent riding by the deceased and the claim for compensation was exaggerated. The Tribunal framed different Issues for consideration, including the Issues as to whether the claimants were able to establish actionable negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and whether the claimants were able to establish their entitlement for compensation and if so, to what amount.
4. The claimants in support of their claim petition examined claimant No.2, the mother of the deceased Sourabh Singh as PW.2, and the executives of M/s. HTMT Global Solutions, the employer of the deceased, as PWs. 3 and 4. They produced the police records, deceased’s academic records, proof of deceased’s employment by way of letter of employment, service records and salary certificate as exhibits.
5. The Tribunal held that the accident was because of the actionable negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. Insofar as compensation, the Tribunal awarded a sum of `9,22,800/- towards loss of dependency and a total sum of `55,000/- under the conventional heads. The Tribunal accepted the evidence produced by the claimants to establish that the deceased, a mechanical engineer, was employed with M/s. HTMT Global Solutions with effect from February, 2009. The deceased’s income was `9,201/-
per month. Based on this evidence, the Tribunal, providing for accretion of 30% of the monthly income towards future prospects, took loss of dependency per month at `5,915/- after deducting 50% towards the personal expenses of the deceased. The Tribunal computed the loss of dependency applying the multiplier of ‘13’ based on the age of the claimant No.2, the mother of the deceased. The Tribunal thus arrived at a sum of `9,22,800/- towards loss of dependency.
6. These appeals involve only the question of quantum as there is no dispute about the accident, the actionable negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and the relationship of the claimants with the deceased. The insurance company has filed its appeal contending that the deceased, admittedly, was not in permanent employment, having joined employment only a couple of months prior to the date of the accident and therefore, the Tribunal could not have granted accretion of 30% of the actual income towards future prospects. However, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company could not dispute that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (AIR 2017 SC 1517), the claimants would be entitled for future prospects and the grounds urged in the appeal memo on behalf of the insurance company would not be tenable. Therefore, this Court need not be detained further in the appeal filed by the insurance company, as the appeal is liable to be dismissed for the aforesaid reason.
7. The learned counsel for the claimants contended that the claimants are entitled for a higher compensation on the grounds of higher income of the deceased, future prospects at the rate of 50% and application of higher multiplier placing reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case supra. The learned counsel contended that the evidence on record, viz., the ocular evidence of PWs.3 and 4, the executives representing the deceased’s employer, M/s. HTMT Global Solutions, establishes that the deceased was in permanent employment and drawing a salary of `17,119/- per month including all allowances and bonuses. However, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased only at `9,100/- per month. The Tribunal, ought to have given the nature of deceased’s education, age and employment, granted future prospects at the rate of 50% instead of 30%. Further, the appropriate multiplier ought to have been based on the deceased’s age in terms of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case, but the Tribunal applied the multiplier based on the age of the deceased’s mother, claimant No.2.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the insurance company, while disputing that the claimants would be entitled for enhancement in the compensation on the ground of future prospects and application of appropriate multiplier, contended that the Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the deceased at `9,100/- based on the salary certificate which showed that the deceased’s monthly income was `9,200/- including the deduction of `100/- towards professional tax.
9. The deceased’s income is as per the salary particulars annexed to the letter of appointment, Ex.
P.13. The salary particulars as found in Ex.P.13, shows that the deceased was being paid a monthly salary of `9,201/- subject to the deduction of `100/- as professional tax. The reliance on Ex.P.14 - pay-slip which refers to the total earnings of the deceased for the financial year ending March, 2009, would be misplaced because an amount of `17,119.37 as found therein, refers to the cumulative earnings of the deceased during the said financial years. The deceased, even according to the claimants, was in employment with M/s HTMT Global Solutions during the months of February and March, 2009. Thus, Ex. P.14 refers to two months’ salary of the deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the deceased as per Ex.P.13. As such, no interference is called for on this ground.
10. The evidence on record, especially the letter of appointment and the terms thereof, establishes that the deceased was appointed as Technical Support Executive with effect from 4.2.2009. Paragraph-2 of the terms annexed to the letter of appointment indicates that the deceased was to be on probation for a period of six months, and continuation of his employment with M/s. HTMT Global Solutions would be subject to satisfactory completion of such six months. Thus, the material on record establishes that the deceased was on a fixed salary with the potential of being in permanent employment. Therefore, in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case, the claimants would be entitled for computation of the loss of dependency at the rate of 50% of the monthly salary of the deceased at `9,100/-. The question of application of appropriate multiplier for computation of compensation on the demise of bachelor in a road accident is also settled, and the appropriate multiplier would be based on the age of the deceased. The claimants are the parents of the deceased, who was aged about 23 years as of the date of the accident. Therefore, the multiplier would be 18. If the compensation payable to the claimants is computed accordingly, with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal being retained, they would be entitled to a sum of `15,29,200/- computed as follows as against a sum of `9,77,740/- awarded by the Tribunal.
Monthly Income of the deceased as per the accepted Salary Certificate (after deducting Rs.100/- towards Professional Tax] Monthly Income of `9100/- and Addition of 50% of `9100 towards Future Prospects Deduction Towards Personal Expenses of the Deceased - 50% `9,100.00 `13,650.00 `6,825.00 Annual Loss `81,900.00 Multiplier 18 Total Loss of Dependency `14,74,200.00 Conventional Heads, as awarded by the Learned Tribunal, including the compensation towards transportation of the body `55,000.00 Total Compensation `15,29,200.00 Amount awarded by the Tribunal `9,77,740.00 Enhancement in the Compensation `5,51,460.00 Therefore, the claimants will be entitled for enhancement in the compensation by `5,51,460/-. Accordingly, the appeal in MFA No. 1037 of 2011 is allowed in part and the Insurance Company – the respondent No. 2 MFA No. 1037 of 2011 is directed to deposit the sum of `5,51,460/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition to the date of the deposit with the Tribunal within six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment.
MFA No.3110 of 2011 is dismissed.
The deposits made by the Insurance Company – the respondent No.2 in MFA No. 1037 of 2011 shall be transferred to the Tribunal for further action in terms of its award.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE Page No.15 is retyped and replaced vide Court order dated 25.10.2019.
SA