IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR MFA. No.8596/2015 (MV) BETWEEN:
1. SUDHA W/O. LATE NAGARAJU B P AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS 2. YOGESH G N S/O. LATE NAGARAJU B P AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS 3. SUNDAR B N S/O. LATE NAGARAJU B P AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS 4. PUTTA HONNAIAH S/O. LATE BOOMI SIDDALEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS 5. KEMPAMMA W/O. PUTTA HONNAIAH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS APPELLANT NO.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS REPTD. BY THEIR MOTHER i.e. 1ST APPELLANT.
ALL ARE R/O BASAVANAPURA VILLAGE MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT.
... APPELLANTS (BY SRI SHRIPAD V SHASTRI, ADV.) AND:
1. MOHANA N. S/O. NAGARAJU R/O. NO.4/236 MATADA STREET KOLLEGALA TALUK CHAMARAJANAGARA DIST.
2. THE MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO. 305, ATCHAM MANSION SOUTHERN EXTENSION KOLLEGALA CHAMARAJANAGARA.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI A N KRISHNA SWAMY, ADV. FOR R2 NOTICE TO R1 D/W) THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 20.08.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO. 222/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT, MALAVALLI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -
JUDGMENT This appeal is listed for orders. With consent of the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondents, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. This appeal is preferred by the appellants/claimants against the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Court of Senior Civil Judge and MACT at Malavalli (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short)in MVC No.222/2015 dated 20.08.2015, whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.8,78,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. and the same has been incorporated in the operative portion of the order. The appellants/claimants being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal have preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
3. The factual matrix of the appeal are as under:
It is stated in the claim petition that on 26.10.2014, the deceased Nagaraju B.P. was riding his Caliber Motorbike bearing registration No.KA-09-U- 9645 on the extreme left side of Halagur-Malavalli main road. As he was proceeding to Halagur towards Malavalli, while he reached in front of Gowdagere Milk Dairy, at about 8.15 p.m., a TATA Ace Milk Goods vehicle bearing registration No.KA-10-8183 came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and without observing any traffic rules and without switching on the indicator, suddenly took turn towards right side i.e., towards Milk Dairy and dashed against motor bike of the deceased Nagaraju. Due to the accident, Nagaraju fell down and sustained severe injuries on the vital parts of the body i.e., head, hands and legs and all over the body. The injured was shifted to Government Hospital, Malavalli and then shifted to Government Hospital at Mandya and thereafter he was shifted to NIMHANS at Bengaluru wherein he was admitted as inpatient and during the course of treatment, he succumbed to fatal injuries on 08.11.2014 at about 7.30 p.m. The same has been reflected in the contentions taken by the claimants in the claim petition. It is further stated that the deceased was as an agriculturist and was also doing milk vending business and earning a sum of Rs.12,000/- p.m. Due to untimely death of the deceased, the petitioners being legal representatives of the deceased are undergoing deep mental shock, pain and suffering. The deceased being the sole earning member was maintaining his family members, due to his death, the petitioners’ life will be dark, miserable, depressed and the family is ruined. All these contentions are taken in the claim petition seeking for compensation.
4. In response to the summons in the claim petition, respondents No.1 and 2 put in their appearance through their counsel. The first respondent did not file any written statement, however, the second respondent filed the written statement resisting the claim petition and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
5. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the issues. In order to prove the case of the petitioners, the first petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P35. On the part of the respondents, respondents No.1 and 2 did not make any effort or endeavor to examine the witnesses in support of their case. Subsequently, on evaluating the entire evidence placed by P.W.1 and the documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P35, the Tribunal by its judgment and award dated 20-08-2015 partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs.8,78,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal, the appellants/claimants are in this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
6. In this appeal, learned counsel for the appellants has taken me through the evidence of P.W.1 relating to the averments that the Tribunal did not appreciate the evidence placed on record by the claimants. The Tribunal ought to have considered the avocation of the deceased that he is an agriculturist and also doing milk vending business earning a sum of Rs.12,000/- p.m. But the Tribunal has erroneously reckoned the income of the deceased only at Rs.6,000/- p.m. Since the accident is of the year 2014, considering the evidence of P.W.1 and request made by the appellants to enhance the income in between Rs.8,500/- to Rs.9,000/- p.m., as per the guidelines issued, learned counsel prays for enhancement of income of the deceased. It is further contended that the Tribunal ought to have added 50% of income of the deceased towards future prospects, since the family members of the deceased have lost dependency and sources of income to eke out their livelihood. Learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RAJESH AND OTHERS v/s RAJBIR SINGH AND OTHERS reported in (2013) 9 SCC 54 and sought intervention of the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal and sought for intervention of this Court on the grounds urged in this appeal.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/insurance company has given counter to the arguments advanced by the claimant for the appellants. It is contended that P.W.1 has only stated that deceased was earning Rs.12,000/- p.m. by doing agricultural work and milk vending, but she did not produce any material document to enhance the income of the deceased to Rs.9,500/- p.m. It is further contended that the Tribunal has already awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.8,78,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., based on the evidence of P.W.1 and also documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P35 said to have produced by P.W.1 in order to establish her case seeking compensation. Therefore, the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal does not call for any interference by this Court and sought for dismissal of the appeal as devoid of merits by confirming the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal in MVC No.222/2015.
8. In the backdrop of all the contentions as taken by the learned counsel for the appellants and respondents, it is relevant to state that there is no dispute about the death of the deceased Nagaraju B.P., who died in a road traffic accident occurred on 26.10.2014 while he was proceeding in his Caliber motor bike bearing registration No.KA-09-U-9645 at about 8.15 p.m., wherein the offending TATA Ace Milk Goods vehicle came from the opposite direction and dashed against the motorbike of the deceased. Due to the impact, the deceased fell down and sustained severe injuries which is reflected in the materials available on record. Ex.P5 is the inquest report, Ex.P6 is the Post Mortem report said to have been issued by the Doctor who conducted autopsy and also noticed the injuries inflicted on the person of the deceased. It is further stated that subsequent to registration of crime by the police against the driver of the offending vehicle, they laid a charge sheet against the accused which is at Ex.P7. Ex.P31 to Ex.P35 are the milk supplying cards produced by P.W.1-Sudha being the wife of the deceased. That itself indicate that deceased Nagaraju was an agriculturist and also doing milk vending business. Taking into consideration all these contentions, the income of the deceased has to be enhanced by a sum of Rs.3,000/-, whereby the Tribunal has reckoned only Rs.6,000/- per month. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v/s PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 the claimants are entitled to future prospects. Hence, taking into consideration the income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- p.m. adding 40% towards future prospects, the total monthly income works out to Rs.12,600/-. Out of which amount, 1/4th has to be deducted towards personal expenditure and applying the appropriate multiplier of 15, the claimants will be entitled to compensation of Rs.17,01,000/- (12600 x 1/4= 9450 x 12 x15) as against Rs.8,78,000/- awarded by the trial Court. The compensation awarded under other heads in paragraph 16 of the impugned judgment remain unaltered and needs no interference by this Court. It is made clear that the Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and the same is maintained intact.
9. For the aforesaid reasons and finding, the impugned judgment and award require intervention of this Court. The claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.8,23,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., in addition to the compensation of Rs.8,78,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The appeal is allowed in part, consequently the appellants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.8,23,000/- in addition to the compensation of Rs.8,78,000/-, with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. The same shall be deposited by respondent No.2/insurance company within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order before the concerned Tribunal.
The entire award amount shall be apportioned in terms of the award passed by the Tribunal on proper identification.
The office is directed to draw the decree, accordingly.
SD/- JUDGE mpk* CT:bms