IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.114 OF 2018 (MV) BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SUNANDAMMA, W/o. LATE ANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 2. MAMATHA, D/o. LATE ANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, 3. LATHA @ HALAMMA, D/o. LATE ANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, 4. PRASANNA, S/o. LATE ANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, ALL ARE R/o.
NEAR GUHESHWARA TEMPLE, NITTUR VILLAGE AND HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 216. (BY SRI. V. B. SIDDARAMAIAH, ADV.,) ... APPELLANTS AND:
1. THE ICICI LOMBARAD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., ICICI LOMBARD HOUSE 414, VEER SAVARKAR MARG, NEAR SIDDIVINAYAKA TEMPLE, PRABHADEVI-562 135, MUMBAI.
REP. BY ITS MANAGER, SERVICE CENTRE AT BARNCH OFFICE NO:89, 2ND FLOOR, SVR COMPLEX, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, MADIVALA, BENGALURU-560068, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.
2. SRI. V. SELVARAJ, S/o. VARADARAJ, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/o. PUTTANJANEYA TEMPLE, KUVEMPU NAGARA-572 101, TUMAKURU TOWN.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.H.N.KESHAVA PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN M.V.C.NO.177/2013, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT-17, AT GUBBI, AND BE PLEASED TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.07.2016, BY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for respondent No.1. Perused the records.
2. Though the matter is listed for admission, with consent of both parties, the same is heard for disposal.
3. The legal heirs, who are the dependents of the deceased Madhukumar have preferred this appeal, being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal by the impugned judgment dated 02.07.2016 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT-17 at Gubbi rendered in MVC No.177/2013, seeking enhancement of compensation.
4. The facts of the case are that on 05.10.2012 at about 7.00 a.m., when the deceased Madhukumar, aged 20 years was proceeding in a luggage auto bearing Reg.No.KA-06-8893 carrying bamboo and bamboo articles, a tipper lorry bearing registration No.KA-06-B-4730 driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the luggage auto. Due to the impact, he sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot.
5. After service of notice, the owner of the offending vehicle as well as the insurer have filed their written statement and contested the claim petition. During the enquiry before the tribunal, the claimants have established the occurrence of the accident, actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and its insurance coverage and the same has remained unchallenged either by the owner of the vehicle or by the insurer.
6. The Tribunal, after evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence has held that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. Taking the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- p.m., and deducting 50% towards his personal expenses and since the deceased was aged 20 years, applied the multiplier 18 and awarded total compensation of Rs.7,78,000/- with interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization under the following heads:
Sl Headings Amount No Rs.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants, during the course of his argument, has taken me through the evidence of P.W.1 and submitted that the monthly earnings of deceased Madhukumar taken at Rs.6,000/- p.m., is on the lower side. Therefore, it requires to be interfered. It is further contended that 50% of the earnings of the deceased had to be added to the monthly earnings while assessing loss of future prospects. While assessing the compensation towards loss of dependency as the parents have lost their son, Tribunal ought to have adopted multiplier 18 as is applicable to the age of deceased, but it has not been considered by the Tribunal. On these grounds urged by learned counsel for the appellants, they are seeking enhancement of compensation under all the heads.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the insurer submitted that the tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence and material available on record has rightly assessed the income of the injured and awarded just and fair compensation, which does not calls for interference and prays for dismissal of the appeal.
9. On careful evaluation of the material on record, it is seen that the claimants being legal representatives of the deceased are the dependents of the deceased who was aged about 20 years and prior to his death, he was doing bamboo and bamboo articles business. The Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- p.m. Under such circumstances, as accident was of the year 2012, the income of the deceased can safely fixed at Rs.8,000/- p.m., and adding 40% towards future prospects as per the ratio laid down in the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, the income of the deceased can be taken as Rs.11,200/- p.m.
(Rs.8,000/- + 40% of Rs.8,000/-). 50% of income has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased as he died as a bachelor. Hence, it comes to Rs.5,600/- (50% of Rs.11,200/-). Thus, loss of dependency is assessed at Rs.12,09,600/- (Rs.5,600/- x 12 x 18). Therefore, the claimants are entitled to compensation under the following heads:
Sl Headings Amount No Rs.
10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.
In modification of the impugned judgment and award dated 02.07.2016 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT-17 at Gubbi rendered in MVC No.177/2013, the compensation payable to the claimant is enhanced from Rs.7,78,000/- to Rs.12,39,600/- (enhanced compensation Rs.4,61,600/-). Respondent No.1-insurer shall deposit the enhanced compensation with interest at 8% p.a., before the tribunal within four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment and on such deposit, the same shall be disbursed to the claimants, on proper identification. However, the impugned judgment and award, in so far as it relates to the rate of interest, apportionment and deposit is concerned, shall remain unaltered.
There shall be no order as to the costs. Office to draw the decree accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE bnv*