IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. L.NARAYANA SWAMY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1462 OF 2014 (MV) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.10834 OF 2013 IN MFA NO.1462 OF 2014 BETWEEN:
1. THIPPAMMA W/O PUTTARANGAPPA HOUSEHOLD WORK, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 2. G.P SHEELA D/O PUTTARANGAPPA, STUDENT, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS 3. G.P SHILPA D/O PUTTARANGAPPA, STUDENT AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT MARUTHI NILAYA JOGIMATTI ROAD, CHITRADURGA TOWN - 577 501.
... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. R.SHASHIDHARA, ADV.) AND:
1. THIRU V ARMUGAM AGE MAJOR, OWNER OF LORRY BEARING NO.KA-04/A-2404, R/AT NO.11, GOWTHAMA NAGARA MILK COLONY, YESHWANTHPURA, BANGALORE - 22 2. THE MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, SHARADA COMPLEX, OPP:KSRTC BUS STAND, CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
3. PUTTARANGAPPA S/O POOJARI CHIKKARANGAPPA, MAJOR, OWNER OF MOTORCYCLE BEARING NO.KA-16/KA-1472, R/AT JOGIMATTI ROAD, OPPOSITE ARALIMARAKATTE, MARUTHI NILAYA, CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
4. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO., LTD, BRANCH OFFICE, SHARADA COMPLEX, OPP:KSRTC BUS STAND, CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
(BY SRI.M U POONACHA, ADV. FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 - DISPENSED; SRI.ARUN PONNAPPA, ADV. FOR R4; R3 IS SERVED) ... RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:31.8.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.362/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CJM, ADDITIONAL MACT-4, CHITRADURGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO.10834 OF 2013 (MV) BETWEEN:
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. BRANCH OFFICE, SHARADA COMPLEX, OPPOSITE KSRTC BUS STAND, CHITRADURGA, NOW BY REGIONAL OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, SUMANGALA COMPLEX, LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBLI - 580 020, (REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY SRI. BALAKRISHNA K.NAYAK).
(BY SRI.M ARUN PONNAPPA, ADV.) AND:
1. THIPPAMMA AGED 44 YEARS, S/O PUTTARANGAPPA 2. G.P. SHEELA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, D/O PUTTARANGAPPA 3. G.P.SHILPA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, D/O PUTTARANGAPPA ... APPELLANT ALL ARE RESIDING AT MARUTHI NILAYA, JOGIMATTI ROAD, CHITRADURGA – 577 501 4. MR.THIRU,V. ARUMUGAM, MAJOR, R/AT NO.11, GOWTHAMA NAGARA MILK COLONY, YASHWANTHPURA, BANGALORE - 560 022.
5. PUTTARANGAPPA MAJOR, S/O POOJARI CHIKKARANGAPPA, R/O JOGIMATTI ROAD, OPPOSITE ARALIMARAKATTE, MARUTHI NILAYA, CHITRADURGA- 577 501 6. THE MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, SHARADA COMPLEX, OPPOSITE KSRTC BUS STAND, CHITRADURGA – 577 501 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.R.SHASHIDHARA, ADV. FOR R1-R3; SRI.C.SHANKAR REDDY, ADV. FOR R6; NOTICE TO R4, R5 - DISPENSED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:31.08.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.362/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT-IV, CHITRADURGA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.23,35,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T MFA No.1462 of 2014 is filed by the appellant-claimants seeking enhancement in the compensation; and MFA No.10834 of 2013 is by the Insurance challenging the quantum.
2. The Tribunal, having considered the case of the respective parties, has awarded compensation of Rs.23,35,000/- of which 50% negligence has been fastened on the deceased. To that extent the appeal filed by the claimants seeking modification of the judgment and fixing liability at 100% on the Insurance.
3. In the appeal filed by the insurance the ground taken is with regard to quantum. It is submitted that the income of the deceased is on the basis of the salary certificate issued. But without examining the author of the said salary certificate the Tribunal has taken the income at Rs.20,000/- per month which is on the higher side. Hence, he submits that when the author is not examined instead of taking the monthly income at Rs.20,000/- as claimed, the Tribunal should have taken the notional income at Rs.10,000/- per month. The second ground is that when the father is alive, the question of dependency does not arise. Hence he seeks modification in the award.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the lower court records made available. It is true that the salary certificate has been produced and relied upon for the purpose of income. When the income is claimed on the basis of the Salary Certificate, the Tribunal should have examined the appointment letter produced as per Exhibit P46 and should have examined the author of the payslip. No such thing is forthcoming. When this ground is not discarded, the Tribunal selecting the income at Rs.20,000/- per month is an error. Be that as it may, to assess the income of the deceased, we have gone through Exhibit P50 the Engineering Degree Certificate which was issued on 25th February 2007. The same supports the case of the claimant to the extent that the deceased holds bachelor degree in Engineering and had a bright future. That must be the reason for the Tribunal to take the income of the deceased at Rs.20,000/- per month. When we look at the original certificate available on record, we believe that taking the income at Rs.20,000/- per month for the accident of the year 2008 comes to approximately Rs.700/- per day which is not on the higher side in the wake of place of residence of the deceased i.e. Chitradurga which is a District Headquarter. Considering all these facts, we hold that the income taken by the Tribunal is not on the higher side and same is proper based on the educational qualification of the deceased. * Accordingly, MFA No.10834 of 2013 is rejected.
5. As regards taking future prospects is concerned, since the salary certificate and also the occupation is also not proved, we do not propose to add future prospects.
6. As regards fixing 50% negligence on the deceased is concerned, there is sufficient evidence and also reasons assigned by the Tribunal. In view of the same, we do not differ with the finding of the Tribunal. Accordingly the judgment and award of the Tribunal is confirmed. In the result, the appeal filed by the claimants seeking enhancement is also liable to be rejected, accordingly rejected. Amount in deposit is directed to be transmitted to the Tribunal.
* Corrected as per Chambers Order dated 06th August, 2019 7. The compensation amount is to be credited directly to the account of the claimants as per the apportionment made by the Tribunal.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE lnn Sd/- JUDGE