IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN M.F.A. No.5781/2016 (MV-D) BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SUDHA S/O. LATE ANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, 2. GOWTHAM S/O. LATE ANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS, 3. SHRUSTI D/O. LATE ANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS, APPELLANT NOS.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER APPELLANT NO.1.
4. PRATAP S/O. MANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, 5. MANJULA D/O. MANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, ALL ARE R/O. VINOBA NAGAR, AJJAMPURA VILLAGE, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT, PIN CODE:577. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI CHIDAMBARA G.S., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SADIQ S/O. ABDUL AZEEZ SAB, AGED MAJOR, R/O. NEAR JAYAPADMA BUILDING, HIMMATH NAGAR, CHITRADURGA – 577 501.
2. THE MANAGER, RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO., NOS.1 AND 2, 1ST FLOOR, MAGANUR COMPLEX, NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND, CHITRADURGA TOWN, PIN CODE – 577 501. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H.N. KESHAVAPRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.07.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.43/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PRINCIPAL JMFC, TARIKERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
J U D G M E N T Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, it is heard finally.
2. The appellants herein are the claimants in MVC.No.43/2013. Being aggrieved by the meager compensation awarded by the Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Tarikere (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal” for the sake of convenience) in MVC.No.43/2013 by judgment and award dated 23/07/2015, the claimants have preferred this appeal.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status before the Tribunal.
4. The appellants/claimants filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents seeking compensation of Rs.26,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
5. It is the case of the appellants/claimants that on 21/04/2013, at about 5.15 p.m., Annappa son of Manjappa was riding new Bajaj Discover motorcycle bearing Engine No.JBZWCF-49603, Chassis No.MDZA 14AZ3CWF37899 from Chitradurga Muruga Mutt to Ajjampura Village by observing traffic rules. At that time, the driver of lorry bearing No.KA:14/6419 drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner endangering human life, on NH-13 Holalkere Road in front of Anjaneya Temple, Janukonda Village, Chitradurga Taluk. As a result, the rider of the motorcycle Annappa sustained grievous injuries and fractures over his body and succumbed to the same.
6. Contending that the deceased Annappa was hale and healthy before the accident and he was doing coolie work and earning Rs.10,000/- per month and contributing the said income for the maintenance of the family and that on account of the death of the only bread earner of the family, the claim petition was filed seeking compensation under various heads.
7. The Tribunal issued notices to the respondents who appeared through their counsel and filed their statement of objections separately.
8. The first respondent/owner of the lorry denied the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the claimants had sought an exorbitant amount of compensation and that the second respondent/insurance company was liable to satisfy the award if any passed by the Tribunal. The first respondent sought dismissal of the claim petition.
9. The second respondent/insurance company filed its statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and by contending that the driver of the lorry who was not the sole contributor to the accident and that there was contributory negligence of the deceased in causing the accident. The award sought by the claimant was exorbitant. That the liability to satisfy the award was subject to the terms and conditions of the policy issued in respect of the vehicle in question. The insurance company also sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
10. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for its consideration:
(1) Whether the petitioners prove that on 21/04/2013 at about 5.15 p.m. when Annappa s/o. Manjappa was going in a new Bajaj Discover motorcycle, on NH- 13 Holalkere Road, in front of Anjaneya Temple, Janukonda village, Chitradurga Taluk, the driver of the mini lorry bearing Registration No.KA:14/6419 came from the opposite direction rashly and negligently with high speed and dashed to the said motorcycle, due to which said Annappa sustained grievous injuries all over his body and succumbed to the injuries at the spot as stated in the petition?
(2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, what amount and from whom?
(3) What order or award?
11. In support of their case, the first petitioner/widow of the deceased Annappa examined herself as PW.1. She produced nine documents, which were marked as Exs.P-1 to P-9. The respondents did not let-in any evidence before the Tribunal. On the basis of the evidence on record, the Tribunal answered issue No.1 in the affirmative and issue No.2 partly in the affirmative and awarded compensation of Rs.6,98,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till realisation. Not being satisfied with the said award, the claimants have preferred this appeal.
12. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants and learned counsel for the second respondent/insurer. Notice to first respondent has been dispensed with vide order dated 22/11/2017.
13. We have perused the material on record.
Appellants’ counsel contended that the Tribunal has awarded a meager compensation on all heads. He contended that on account of loss of dependency, a sum of Rs.6,48,000/- only has been awarded by assessing notional income of the deceased Annappa at Rs.54,000/- p.a. as per minimum wage, which is about Rs.4,500/-p.m. He contended that the accident occurred on 21/04/2013. That normally this Court even while assessing the notional income of the deceased as coolie, the same is assessed at Rs.8,000/- per month when the accident is of the year 2013. Therefore, this Court may assess the notional income of the deceased atleast at Rs.8,000/- p.m.
14. He further contended that having regard to the latest dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi, [(2017)16 SCC 680], having regard to the age of the claimant being only 24 years, future prospects of 40% must be assessed. In which event, the notional monthly income would be Rs.11,200/-, by adding Rs.3,200/- p.m. towards future prospects. That the claimants being the widow, children, brother and sister of the deceased Annappa, 1/4th of the said amount has to be deducted towards the personal income of the deceased which is Rs.2,800/-. The balance amount is Rs.8,400/-, which has to be multiplied by 12 and the multiplier of 18 as the age of the deceased was 24 years. Consequently, the amount of compensation awarded on the head of loss of dependency would be Rs.18,14,400/- instead of Rs.6,48,000/-. Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the compensation on the conventional heads may be enhanced.
15. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/insurer, drawing out attention to various paragraphs of the judgment, submitted that the award of compensation is just and proper and would not call for any enhancement in this appeal. That there is no merit in the appeal and the same may be dismissed.
16. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the material on record, the following points would arise for my consideration:
(i) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal would call for any modification in this appeal?
(ii) What order?
17. The appellants/claimants have established the fact that on 21/04/2013, Annappa died in a road traffic accident at around 5.15 p.m. on NH-13, Holalkere Road, Chitradurga Taluk. The only controversy in this appeal is with regard to the award of compensation by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded compensation on various heads as under:
Loss of dependency (Rs.36,000 x 18) : Rs.6,48,000/-
Loss of Consortium : Rs. 10,000/- Funeral & obsequies Ceremony : Rs. 10,000/-
Loss of love & affection : Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of estate : Rs. 15,000/- TOTAL:- Rs.6,98,000/-
========= The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is Rs.6,98,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till deposit.
18. The detailed narration of facts and submissions would not call for reiteration. The point to be considered is, whether the claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation on the head of loss of dependency. The Tribunal has reckoned notional income of Rs.4,500/- per month. Having regard to the fact that the accident occurred on 21/04/2013, normally, this Court, while assessing the notional income of a coolie, would assess the same at Rs.8,000/- p.m. We think, it is just and proper to adopt the same in this case also and towards future prospects 40% of the same shall be added. Thus, the total income is Rs.11,200/- per month. One fourth of the said amount shall be deducted towards the personal expenditure of the deceased having regard to the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarala Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, [(2009)6 SCC 121] as the claimants are five in number. After deducting the same, the balance amount is Rs.8,400/-. It is multiplied by 12 (annual income) and by applying multiplier of 18 having regard to the age of the deceased being 24 years, the compensation on the head of loss of dependency would be 18,14,400/-. In addition to that, a sum of Rs.40,000/- is awarded towards loss of spousal consortium and a sum of Rs.30,000/-each is awarded towards loss of parental consortium. Further, a sum of Rs.15,000/- each is awarded to appellant Nos.4 and 5 towards loss of love and affection for siblings. A sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards loss of estate and another sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses. Thus, the total compensation is re- assessed at Rs.19,74,400/- which shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in favour of the appellants and against the respondent/insurer.
19. The enhanced compensation is Rs.19,74,400/- and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is Rs.6,98,000/- and the difference is (Rs.19,74,400 - Rs.6,98,000 = Rs.12,76,400). Thus the actual enhanced compensation would come to Rs.12,76,400/-, which shall be apportioned in the same ratio as has been apportioned by the Tribunal.
20. 75% of the enhanced compensation with interest shall be deposited by the first appellant in any nationalized bank or post office for an initial period of ten years. She shall be entitled to draw periodical interest on the said deposit. The balance compensation shall be released to her after due verification. The compensation awarded to the children of the deceased shall be in a fixed deposit in any nationalized bank or post office deposit till they attain the age of majority. The enhanced compensation awarded to the 4th and 5th respondents being the siblings of the deceased shall be released to them after due verification.
21. The enhanced compensation with upto date interest shall be deposited by the insurance company within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment.
22. The appeal is allowed in part in the aforesaid terms.
Parties to bear their respective costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE S*