IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. L. NARAYANA SWAMY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR MFA No.468 OF 2016 (MV) BETWEEN 1. SMT. T. LALITHA, W/O. LATE. S. C. GOPALACHAR, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 2. G. MURALI MANOHAR KRISHNA, S/O. LATE. S. C. GOPALACHAR, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, 3. G. BHARGAVI, D/O. LATE. S.C. GOPALACHAR, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, 4. SMT. JAYALAKSHMAMMA, W/O. LATE. CHANNAKESHAVAIAH, ALL ARE R/A NO.7, 3RD CROSS, DEVAPPA GARDEN, NAGASHETTYHALLI, RMV II STAGE, BENGALURU-560094.
(BY SRI. N. S. BHAT, ADV.,) AND 1. KARNATAKA SCHEDULE CASTES & SCHEDULE TRIBES DCL, ... APPELLANTS 9TH & 10TH FLOORS, VISVESWARAYYA MINI TOWERS, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001, BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, (R. C. OWNER OF TOYOTA QUALIS).
2. DR. AMBEDKAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD, 9TH & 10TH FLOORS, VISWESWARAYYA MINI TOWER, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, (POLICY HOLDER OF TOYOTA QUALIS).
3. THE KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT INSURANCE DEPARTMENT, (K.G.I.D) VISWESWARAYYA TOWER, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, (INSURER OF TOYOTA QUALIS).
4. SRI. K. RAMESH, S/O. KUNDASWAMY, MAJOR, AT: F20, RAJAPALAYAM, KOZHIKKALNATHM, NAMAKKAL-637211, TAMIL NADU STATE, (R.C. OWNER OF LORRY).
5. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, 5TH & 6TH FLOOR, KRISHNA SAMAJA BHAVAN, HUDSON CIRCLE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560001, BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, (INSURER OF LORRY).
... RESPONDENTS (GOVERNMENT ADV., FOR R3; NOTICE TO R1, 2, 4, 5 IS D/W) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:05.10.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.5616/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, XVI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU (SCCH-14), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Government Advocate for respondent No.3, perused the records.
2. The wife and children of the deceased who succumbed to the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident on 30.10.2014, made a claim petition and the Tribunal by its judgment dated 05.10.2015 awarded a compensation of Rs.54,07,000/-. Against the said judgment and award this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation is filed.
3. The facts of the case are that on 30.10.2014, at about 11.45 a.m., when the deceased Gopalachar was traveling in Toyota Qualis car bearing registration No.KA-04/Z-1747 towards Chitradurga on NH-4, the driver of the said vehicle drove the car in high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and loss control over the vehicle near Metekurke village, near IRB plant, Hiriyur Taluk, and dashed against Lorry bearing registration No.TN-34/J-6166. Due to the impact, he sustained grievous injuries. He was immediately shifted to Basaveshwara Medical College, Chitradurga. He was advised to be shifted to a major at Bangalore, but he succumbed to the injuries on the way to hospital.
4. 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.
5. The tribunal, after evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence has held that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligence of the offending vehicle. Taking the income of the deceased at Rs.96,777/- per month, and deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses since the deceased was aged 59 years, by applying the multiplier ‘9’ the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of 54,07,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization under the following heads.
Sl Headings Amount No Rs.
6. The only ground urged by the appellants is with regard to the income. The Tribunal has assessed the income on the basis of salary certificate( Ex.P7), which reveals that the deceased was getting salary of Rs.96,777/-. The income tax to be deducted is Rs.5,000/- and Professional Tax is Rs.2,000/- After deducting a sum of Rs.7,000/- from the gross salary, the net salary he would get Rs.89,777/-. This amount should be taken for the purpose of calculating compensation under the head loss of dependency. However, the learned Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd form his annual salary though he was aged 59 years and taken the income of deceased as Rs.5,83,000/- per annum and applied the multiplier of ‘9’ to arrive at compensation of Rs.52,47,000/- towards loss of dependency. Hence, the same requires to be enhanced. The learned counsel has also sought for enhancement under other heads.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the insurer submitted that the tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence/material 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.
8. On careful evaluation of the material on record, it is seen that the claimants being wife and children and mother of the deceased are the dependents of the deceased who was aged 59 years and prior to his death, he was working as Deputy General Manager in second respondent Corporation and earning a sum of Rs.96,777/- p.m. Under such circumstances, the tribunal having regard to the fact that the accident was of the year 2014 and after making necessary deductions has rightly assessed the annual income of the deceased at Rs.8,75,591/- and after deducted 1/3rd towards his personal and living expenses, determined the compensation of Rs.52,47,000/- towards ‘loss of dependency’. Even thee compensation awarded by the tribunal under other heads is just and reasonable and does not call for interference.
9. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE Np/-