IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF MAY 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV M.F.A. No.9681/2011 (MV) Between:
1. Sri. Venkatesh Babu, S/o D.R. Ashwathaiah Setty, Aged about 52 years.
2. Smt. D.V. Sudhamani, W/o D.A. Venkatesh Babu, Aged about 46 years.
Both residing at:
New Shringar Bed House, M.G.Road, Chintamani, Kolar District. … Appellants (By Sri B.R. Viswanath, Advocate) And:
1. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., No.105/A, Cears Plaza, No.136, Residency Road, Bangalore – 560 025, Represented by its General Manger, Managing Director.
2. Sri. G.V. Madhukar, Major, S/o G.Venkataravanappa, C/o H. Mashtaiah, No.153, I Block, II Floor, Dodda Bommasandra, Bangalore - 97. …Respondents (By Sri O. Mahesh, Advocate for R-1;
Notice to R-2 is Dispensed with v/o dated 14.11.2013) This M.F.A. is filed under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and award dated 16.06.2011 passed in MVC No.2994/2007 on the file of X Additional Judge, Member, MACT, Bangalore, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
This M.F.A. having been heard and reserved on 08.03.2019 and coming on for pronouncement of judgment, this day, the Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T The claimants are the parents of deceased D.V.Praveen who was traveling in the motor bike bearing Registration No.KA 40 ET 1680 as a pillion rider. It is stated that the motor bike was being driven by R. Vijaykumar and the bike met with an accident near the restaurant ‘Punjabi Cuisine’ near Bellandur and as a consequence of such accident, Praveen fell down and sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the said injuries and died.
2. The parties are referred to by their ranks before the Tribunal.
3. It is the case of the claimants that deceased Praveen was aged about 19 years, was studying Engineering at Ambedkar Institute of Technology and had an excellent academic record and bright future. It was also asserted that he had joined a Call Centre and was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. The claimants contended that they were dependents and had suffered mental agony due to the unexpected death of their son. The claim petition came to be filed seeking for compensation and the insurance company as well as owner of the vehicle were arrayed as respondents.
4. Upon notice of petition, the insurer has filed statement of objections contending that the driver of the motor cycle did not possess valid driving licence, that the policy details furnished by the claimants is with respect to motor cycle bearing Engine No. 43513 and Chasis No. 5449 and it was not in respect to motor cycle bearing No. KA-02-ET-1680. The statement of objections came to be amended and the insurer has taken up the defence that the deceased was riding the motor cycle in question and the policy did not cover liability of the rider.
It is further contended that the insurer ought to have been informed of the accident immediately in terms of the condition in the policy, that there is collusion between the owner and the claimants and have denied the other averments made in the petition.
5. Respondent No.2 has been placed exparte as, despite service of notice there was no representation and the Tribunal has framed issues on 16.1.2009 raising the questions that required adjudication regarding occurrence of accident due to negligence of the rider of the motor cycle KA-04-ET-1680 and as regards entitlement of compensation.
6. After having heard counsel on both the sides, the point for consideration is, “Whether appellant is entitled for enhancement of compensation?”
7. Apart from having taken note the arguments as advanced by the claimants and the response from the respondents, this Court is inclined to consider compensation under the head of future prospects of the deceased. Though the appeal does not raise this ground, yet it is the settled legal proposition that the Motor Vehicles Act is beneficial and welfare legislation and the Court is entitled to award “just compensation” irrespective of whether any plea in that behalf has been raised by the claimant, if the Court is of the opinion that enhanced compensation is to be awarded.
8. The deceased in the present case was 19 years of age and was pursuing Engineering at Ambedkar Institute of Technology. Records indicate that he was a bright student. Ex.P.15 is statement of Marks of the deceased for Secondary Education Examination, 2003, conducted by the Indian School Certificate Examination, New Delhi (ICSE Board), which evidences that deceased scored 75.3% (Distinction), while Ex.P.16 is Pre-University Examination Score Card which indicates that the candidate has scored 86.3%, Ex.P.17 is Bachelor of Engineering First Semester Computer Science and Engineering Score sheet which shows that the candidate has scored 63.8%. An assessment of the factual matrix indicates that the academic performance of the deceased was very good. This Court finds sufficient merit in the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R.K. Malik and Anr. Vs. Kiran Pal and Ors., in Civil Appeal No.3609/2009, the relevant para is extracted herein below for convenience:
“32. In view of discussion made hereinbefore, it is quite clear the claim with regard to future prospect should have been be addressed by the courts below. While considering such claims, child’s performance in school, the reputation of the school etc. might be taken into consideration. In the present case, records shows that the children were good in studies and studying in a reasonably good school. Naturally, their future prospect would be presumed to be good and bright. Since they were children, there is no yardstick to measure the loss of future prospects of these children. But as already noted, they were performing well in studies, natural consequence supposed to be a bright future. In the case of Lata Wadhwa (supra) and M.S.Grewal (supra), the Supreme Court recognized such future prospect as basis and factor to be considered. Therefore, denying compensation towards future prospects seems to be unjustified. Keeping this in background, facts and circumstances of the present case, following the decision in Lata Wadhwa (supra) and M.S. Grewal (supra), we deem it appropriate to grant compensation of Rs.75,000/- (which is roughly half of the amount given on account of pecuniary damages) as compensation for the future prospects of the children, to be paid to each claimant within one month of the date of this decision. We would like to clarify that this amount i.e., Rs.75,000/- is over and above what has been awarded by the High Court.”
(emphasis supplied) 9. Accordingly, taking note that the Apex Court has awarded compensation of Rs.75,000/- for children it would be appropriate to award compensation taking note of the future prospects of the deceased who was an Engineering student to award an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-.
10. The enhanced amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to be paid along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The enhanced compensation along with interest shall be deposited before this Court within 12 weeks from the date of release of this judgment.
The enhanced compensation shall be disbursed to the claimants as was done before the Tribunal in terms of its award.
Sd/-
JUDGE RS/* ct:mhp