IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR MFA NO.1406 OF 2016 (MV) C/W MFA NO.1725 OF 2016 (MV) MFA NO.1406 OF 2016 (MV) BETWEEN:
1. SMT.T.N.SHARADAMMA W/O LATE REVANNA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS 2. CHI.DEEPIKA.S.R. D/O LATE REVANNA AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS 3. CHI.BHOOMIKA.S.R. D/O LATE REVANNA AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS 4. SMT.SIDDAGANGAMMA W/O SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS THE APPELLANTS NO.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS, REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN, MOTHER T.N.SHARADAMMA – 1ST APPELLANT ALL ARE R/AT SANGANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHELUR HOBLI GUBBI TALUK TUMKUR DIST – 572 129 (BY SRI.V B SIDDARAMAIAH, ADV.) AND:
... APPELLANTS 1. THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
2ND FLOOR, S.M.TOWER, 11TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 011 REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER 2. SRI ANANDA S/O SANJEEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O KENCHENAHALLI VILLAGE, CHELUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK – 572 129 TUMKUR DISTRICT (BY SRI.B PRADEEP, ADV. FOR R1;
... RESPONDENTS NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DTD:04.03.2016) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:02.01.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.930/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT-17, GUBBI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
In MFA No.1725/2016 BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER RELIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., 2ND FLOOR, S.M.TOWER 11TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALROE – 560 011, NOW REP. BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER, RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE 5TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING, NO.28, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001 (BY SRI.B PRADEEP, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. T.N.SHARADAMMA W/O LATE REVANNA NOW AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS 2. DEEPIKA.S.R.
D/O LATE REVANNA NOW AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS 3. BHOOMIKA.S.R. D/O LATE REVANNA NOW AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS 4. SIDDAGANGAMMA W/O SHIVANNA NOW AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT SANGANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHELUR HOBLI ... APPELLANT GUBBI TALUK TUMKUR DIST – 570 021.
RESPONDENT NO.3 IS SINCE MINOR REP. BY HER MOTHER 1ST RESPONDENT AS NATURAL GUARDIAN 5. ANANDA S/O SANJEEVAPPA NOW AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT KENCHENAHALLI VILLAGE CHELUR HOBLI GUBBI TALUK TUMKUR DIST.- 570 021 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.V.B.SIDDARAMAIAH, ADV. FOR R1-R4; SRI.FAYAZ SAB B.G. ADV. FOR R5) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:02.01.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.930/14 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT-17, GUBBI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.22,60,096/- WITH INTEREST AT 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DEPOSIT.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, NARAYANA SWAMY J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T Miscellaneous First Appeal No.1406 of 2016 is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement in compensation; and Miscellaneous First Appeal No.1725 of 2016 is filed by the Insurance seeking reduction in the compensation.
2. The ground taken by the appellant-Insurance is with regard to adding of future prospects. It is submitted that on the basis of the evidence produced by the claimant the future prospects should have been added at 40%. As against the same, the Tribunal has taken it at 50% which is contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in 2017 SCC ONLINE SC 1270. The second ground is with regard to the compensation awarded at Rs.2,80,000/- under conventional heads instead of Rs.70,000/-.
The ground taken by the claimant for enhancement is with regard to adding future prospects and also awarding of compensation under the head loss of consortium, love and affection.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The dispute hitherto has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PRANAY SETHI (SUPRA) wherein it is held that in case of self-employed, based on the age of the victim, future prospects is to be added at 40% instead adding it of 50%. In the instant case, the Tribunal has committed an error in adding the future prospects at 50%. Hence, the same needs to rectified. Accordingly, the future prospects is added at 40%. The claimant has claimed that he was earning income at Rs.8,700/- per month and by adding 40% of the income it comes to Rs.3,480/- that means Rs.12,180/- per month. Out of the same if one fourth is deducted it comes to Rs.9,135/-. Accordingly, the calculation under the head loss of dependency would be Rs.9,135/- x 12 x 15 = Rs.16,44,300/-. The same is awarded as against Rs.17,61,840/- awarded by the Tribunal. Under conventional head, the total amount is restricted to Rs.70,000/-. The amount of Rs.2,18,256/- awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses is retained. In total, the compensation comes to Rs.19,32,556/- and the same is awarded as against Rs.22,60,096/- awarded by the Tribunal. To that extent the award of the Tribunal stands modified. Appeal filed by the Insurance is allowed in part.
As regards the submission made by the learned counsel for the claimants for enhancement, we have gone through the judgment and find that the Tribunal has considered all the material evidence and the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and has awarded the just and proper compensation. Accordingly, the same does not call for interference and is appeal filed by the claimants seeking enhancement is liable to rejected. Accordingly rejected. Amount in deposit is directed to be transmitted to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE lnn