IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR M.F.A.NO.7984 OF 2018(MV) BETWEEN 1. SMT.SUSHEELA M.H.
W/O LATE BASAVARAJU.M AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS.
2. MASTER SUPREETH M.S. S/O LATE BASAVARAJU.M AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS.
APPELLANT NO.2 IS MINORS REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN HER MOTHER 1ST APPELLANT.
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT: NO.343/1, SANJEEVININAGAR HAGGANAHALLY BENGALURU – 560 091.
(BY SRI.SATHISHA.T, ADVOCATE) …APPELLANTS AND 1. LOKESH G.H S/O HOMBAAH MEJOR IN AGE R/O NO.18, GOLLANAHALLY CHIKKANAHALLI POST, THARAVEREKERE HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH – 562 130.
2. THE MANAGER UNIVERSAL SAMPO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., KVD TOWERS NO.7/3, 2ND FLOOR ABOVE BARCLAYS FINANCE OPP:100 FEET ROAD BENGALURU – 560 038.
3. SMT.NINGAMMA W/O LATE MALLAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS MANJUNATHAPURA VILLAGE HALKURKE POST TIPTUR TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT – 577 101.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 NOTICE RO R-1 D/W) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 25.07.2018, PASSED IN MVC NO, 4022/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE X ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-16) PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This appeal has been filed by the claimant challenging the impugned judgment and award dated 25.07.2018 passed by the learned Court of Small Causes and MACT, at Bengaluru (for short ‘the Tribunal’), in M.V.C.No.4022/2017 awarding a sum of Rs.13,30,000/- together with interest at 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of deposit on account of the death of the deceased in a road traffic accident that occurred on 25.04.2017.
2. Though the matter is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
3. Both the counsels submit that the occurrence of accident as well as the coverage of the policy of the offending vehicle by the Insurance company are not in dispute and this appeal is restricted to quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants-claimants submits that the Tribunal committed an error in taking the notional income as Rs.9,000/- per month instead of Rs.11,000/- per month as per the Lok Adalat guidelines as the accident is of the year 2017. It is also contended that the Tribunal committed an error in not adding 25% of future prospects to the notional income of the deceased aged 41 years without considering or appreciating the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others (2017) 16 SCC 680.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2-Insurance company is supporting the impugned judgment and award.
6. I have given my careful consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
7. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellants, the Tribunal committed an error in failing to appreciate the Lok Adalat guidelines which stipulate that in respect of an accident that took place in the year 2017, the notional income should be taken as Rs.11,000/- per month and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi’s case, the Tribunal ought to have added 25% of future prospects to the notional income of Rs.11,000/- per month, which comes to Rs.13,750/- (Rs.11,000/- + Rs.2,750/-). Hence, deducting 1/3rd of income of the deceased towards personal expenses, the compensation under the head ‘loss of dependency’ comes to Rs.15,40,056/- (Rs.9,167/- x 12 x 14). The appellants are also entitled to additional compensation of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of consortium in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram & Others (2018) 18 SCC 130. Compensation awarded under the heads loss of estate and funeral expenses in a sum of Rs.15,000/- each is just and reasonable and it is undisturbed.
8. Thus, the total compensation would have to be reworked as hereunder:-
1 Loss of dependency Rs.15,40,056/-
2 Loss of consortium Rs.70,000/-
3 Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
4 Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.16,40,056/-
Since the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.13,30,000/-, the appellants – claimants would be entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.3,10,056/- (Rs.16,40,056/- - Rs.13,30,000/-) with interest at 6% p.a.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I pass the following order:-
(i) The appeal is partly allowed.
(ii) The appellants-claimants are entitled to additional compensation of Rs.3,10,056/- which shall carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.
(iii) The apportionment and disbursement to be done as per the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
bnv Sd/- JUDGE