IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. L. NARAYANA SWAMY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE M.F.A. NO.2452 OF 2018 (MV) BETWEEN:
1. SMT. T.SHANTHAMMA W/O LATE T.NAGARAJU @ THIPPANNA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 2. SMT T.RAJANNA W/O LATE T.LAKSHMAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT NO.8-45-A SANDHU VEEDI KOLAMASANAPALLI, PALAMANER, CHITTOOR DIST.
ANDHRA PRADESH – 517 432 ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI.GURUDEVA PRASAD K T, ADV.) AND:
1. IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., SRI.SHANTHI TOWERS, 5TH FLOOR, NO.141, III MAIN, EAST TO NGEF LAYOUT, KASTURINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 043 BY ITS MANAGER 2. SRI.MALLIKARJUN MOLAGARA S/O M.NIRANJAN R/AT NO.13-7-937/B B.V.N. STREET, TIRUPATHI CHITTOOR DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH – 517 501 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.B.PRADEEP, ADV. FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DTD:28.03.2019) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:26/08/2017, PASSED IN MVC NO.6353/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE X ADDL. JUDGE AND MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU (SCCH-16), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T In the road traffic accident that took place on 11th September 2016, the husband of the appellant, while he was travelling as a pillion rider on motorcycle bearing registration No.KA 07 R 798 towards Palamner, and when the vehicle reached Gollapalli village, at that time a car bearing registration No.AP 03 TB 4239 which was coming from the opposite direction being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the motorcycle which resulted the death of the pillion rider on the spot. The wife and the mother of the deceased filed claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Bengaluru. The Tribunal, by its judgment and award dated 26th August, 2017 passed in MVC No.6353 of 2016 awarded compensation of Rs.13,00,000/-. Being not satisfied with the compensation amount, the claimants are before this Court, seeking enhancement in the compensation.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant- appellants submits that the prior to the accident the deceased was working as painter and was also doing agricultural work and was earning Rs.35,000/- per month. But disbelieving the same, the Tribunal has assessed the income at Rs.9,000/- per month, which is very meager. He submits that the Tribunal has committed an error in giving deduction at one-third. He also submits that the Tribunal has committed an error in not adding future prospects. Hence, he prays for suitable enhancement in the compensation.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent- insurer submits that the Tribunal has awarded just compensation based on the oral and documentary evidence produced before it by the claimants and there is no error in it. Hence, he submits that there is no ground for interference and prays for dismissal of the appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment and award. The accident is not in dispute and the death of the breadwinner of the family is also not in dispute. There is some force in the submission of the learned counsel for the claimants. The Tribunal has given a finding that the accident is due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending car. It is stated in the claim petition that the deceased was earning Rs.35,000/- by doing painting work and by doing agricultural work. But since no documentary proof has been produced and Exhibit R15-pattadar produced is in the name of the mother of the deceased. Hence, the Tribunal has taken the income at Rs.9,000/- per month. This court, with relevance to the accident of the year, 2016, consistently assess the income at Rs.10,000/- per month. The same is taken in this case also. Further, the Tribunal has given the deduction at one-third. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SARLA VARMA v DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION LIMITED reported in 2009 ACJ 1298, the deduction should be given at two-third and hence the same taken in the present case. Further, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 future prospects at 40% is to be added to the income. If the same is added, the monthly income comes to Rs.10,000/- x 40% = Rs.14,000/-, the same is taken for the purpose of calculation of compensation under the head loss of dependency. Accordingly, the calculation would be Rs.1000 x 12 x 15 x 2/3 comes to Rs.16,80,000/-. The same is awarded as against Rs.10,80,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Under the head loss of consortium, an amount of Rs.40,000/- is awarded. Rs.15,000/- each is awarded under the head funeral expenses and loss of estate. In total the enhanced compensation would be Rs.6,70,000/-. Out of that, the amount of Rs.2,20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head conventional heads is to deducted. If that is deduction, the amount comes to Rs.4,50,000/-. The same is awarded in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal. It is made clear that the interest on the enhanced amount as also the apportionment shall be as per the award of the Tribunal.
In the result, appeal is allowed in part.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE lnn