IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.2311/2015 (MV) c/w MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.4876/2015 (MV) IN MFA No.2311/2015 (MV) BETWEEN 1. SMT. SUNANDA W/O LATE RAMESH K H AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 2. SRI RAMACHANDRA R S/O LATE RAMESH K H AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, 3. SMT KEMPAMMA W/O LATE HUCHAIAH ALIAS, KURI HUCHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, MOTHER OF DECEASED RAMESH K H ALL ARE RESIDING AT:
NO.381, 2ND CROSS, LAVA KUSHA NAGARA, LAGGERE, BANGALORE-560058. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. VENKATE GOWDA K, ADV.) AND 1. M/S ROYAL SUNDRAM ALLAINCE COMPANY LTD., REPD. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, NO.186/7, GROUND FLOOR, WILSON GRADEN, RAGHAVENDRA COMPLEX, FIRST CROSS, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560027.
2. MR. ALLAUDIN MUJAWAR AGED: MAJOR, R/AT NO.35/2, J C ROAD CROSS, BEHIND SHIVAJI TALKIES, BANGALORE-560002.
3. M/S RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REPT. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, NO.6/4, ENVIRON TOWERS, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, ELECTRONIC CITY, BANGALORE-560100.
4. MR. MOHAN KUMAR S/O MANJE GOWDA, AGED MAJOR, R/AT. NO.8, MANJUNATHA NILAYA, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 10TH CROSS, G G PALYA RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560010. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P B RAJU, ADV. FOR R1, NOTICE TO R2 AND R4 DISPENSED WITH, SRI. B.PRADEEP, ADV. FOR R3) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:27.11.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.1354/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE 22ND ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA No.4876/2015 (MV) BETWEEN LEGAL MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, NO.6/4, ENVIRON TOWERS, HOSUR MAIN ROAD ELCTRONIC CITY, BANGALORE-560100, NOW REP. BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER, RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., RGIC, NO.28, EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING M G ROAD, BANGALORE 5600010. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. B.PRADEEP, ADV.) AND 1. SMT. SUNANDA W/O LATE RAMESH K H NOW AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 2. RAMACHANDRA R S/O LATE RAMESH K H, NOW AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, 3. SMT KEMPAMMA W/O LATE HUCHAIAH ALIAS KURI HUCHAIAH, NOW AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, ALL ARE R/O NO.381, 2ND CROSS, LAVA KUSHA NAGARA, LAGGERE, BANGALORE-560058.
4. M/S ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH MANAGER NO.186/7, RAGHAVENDRA COMPLEX, GROUND FLOOR, WILSON GARDEN, 1ST CROSS, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560030.
5. ALLAUDIN MUJAWAR, AGE: MAJOR, NO.35/2, J C ROAD CROSS, BEHIND SHIVAJI TALKIES, BANGALORE-02.
6. MOHAN KUMAR, S/O MANJE GOWDA, AGE: MAJOR, R/AT NO. 8, MANJUNATHA NILAYA, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 10TH CROSS, G G PALYA, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-10. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VENKATA GOWDA, ADV. FOR R1 TO 3, R-4 SERVED, SRI. K.S.BHEEMAIAH, ADV. FOR R-5, R-6 NOTICE IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:27.11.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.1354/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE 22ND ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.9,18,600/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION, TILL DEPOSIT.
THESE MFA’s COMING ON FOR ‘ADMISSION’ THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT IN M.F.A. No.2311/2015:
This appeal is filed by the claimants - legal representatives of the deceased seeking enhancement as against the judgment and award dated 27.11.2014 in MVC No.1354/2012 passed by the XXII Addl. Small Causes Judge & Member MACT, Bengaluru. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.9,18,600/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. The accident is of the year 2012.
2. Heard, 3. The claimants are the wife, son and mother of the deceased, made a claim for the road accident death of a person aged about 40 years as on 22.01.2012. The claimants have stated and claimed that the deceased was a driver of heavy goods vehicle and they have produced Ex.P7 the notarized copy of the driving licence of the deceased. The income of the deceased as it was claimed by the claimants is Rs.12,000/- p.m., the same has been disbelieved and the income is assessed at Rs.6,000+30% future prospects.
4. Learned counsel submitted that when an avocation is without a stable income i.e. self employed, then it needs to be assessed as per the judgment of the National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in 2017 SCC online SC 1270 wherein it has been held that in case the stable income has been established, additional 30% to be added as a future prospects.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent insurance supports the order and submitted to dismiss the appeal.
6. The accidental death is not in dispute and so also the relationship. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court the additional 30% future prospects has to be added and with regard to the income as it was claimed in the claim petition i.e. deceased income Rs.12,000/- p.m. he holds the licence to drive medium goods vehicle.
Hence, for the purpose of calculation Rs.6,000+30% was adopted. In respect of the future prospects claimants have not examined the employer so as to prove the income for the purpose of calculation. Under these circumstances calculating future prospects does not arise. However, there is no scope to disbelieve the income of the deceased. Under this circumstance, Rs.8,000/- is to be taken and multiplier is ‘14. Hence, the calculation is Rs.8,000 x 12 x 14 = Rs.13,44,000/- is awarded under the head loss of dependency and Rs.70,000/- is awarded on the conventional heads in total the claimants are entitled to Rs.14,14,000/-.
The judgment and award of the Tribunal stands modified and accordingly, appeal is allowed in part. However, deposit and release of the compensation amount shall be as per the award.
IN M.F.A. No.4876/2015:
7. This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company seeking to set aside the judgment and award dated 27.11.2014 in MVC No.1354/2012 passed by the XXII Addl. Small Causes Judge & Member MACT, Bengaluru. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.9,18,600/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. The accident is of the year 2012.
8. Heard, 9. With regard to the negligence and quantum insurance company has filed this appeal and submitted that the negligence is more on the other vehicle and liablility ought to have been fixed more on the other vehicle. Hence, liability fixed at 50:50 is erroneous.
10. In respect of the negligence aspect, the finding of the Tribunal holds good and however liberty is given to the appellant to prove negligence before the competent court in an appropriate proceedings. So far as contention relating to quantum, the compensation is enhanced in the appeal filed by the claimants. Hence, the said contention is rejected.
Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE.
CT-HR Chs*