IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.5078 OF 2018 (MV) BETWEEN:
THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., D.O. 6TH FLOOR, KRUSHIBHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU- 560 001.
POLICY No. 0714833116P111228044, VALID FROM 24.11.2016 TO 23.11.2017 BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., MOTOR T.P. DEPARTMENT, REGIONAL OFFICE, 5TH & 6TH FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, KRISHI BHAVAN, BENGALURU- 560 001.
(BY SRI.P.B.RAJU, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SMT. ANITHA, W/o. LATE LAKSHMANA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, 2. VIJAYALAKSHMI.K.L., D/o. LATE LAKSHMANA, AGED ABOUT 09 YEARS, ... APPELLANT 3. MOHAN KUMAR.K.L., S/o. LATE LAKSHMANA, AGED ABOUT 07 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NOs.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS, REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER i.e., 1ST RESPONDENT, ANITHA.
4. SMT. GUNDAMMA, W/o. BHADRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, 5. SRI. BHADRAIAH, S/o. GOOLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT: KOPPA VILLAGE, YEDIYUR HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 130.
6. SRI. ABDUL KHAYUM, S/o. LATE. ABDUL BASHEER, R/o. NO.328, JANATHA COLONY, MAVINAKATTE PALYA, BIDANGERE POST, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 130.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GOPALKRISHNA.N, ADV., FOR R1-R5; NOTICE TO R6 IS D/W) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:24/03/2018, PASSED IN MVC NO.1543/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, AND TO EXONERATE THE LIABILITY UPON THE APPELLANT-INSURANCE COMPANY.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the claimants-respondents No.1 to 6. Perused the records.
2. Though the matter is listed for admission, with consent of both the parties, the same is heard for final disposal.
3. The insurance company has preferred this appeal, challenging the liability fastened on it and also the quantum of compensation awarded in the impugned judgment dated 24.03.2018 passed by the MACT/Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru made in MVC No.1543/2017 seeking reduction in the compensation awarded by the.
4. The facts of the case are that on 25.01.2017 at around 7.30 pm., when the deceased was walking on the left side of footpath of NH-57 road at Koppa gate, Magadipalya village, Yediyur Hobli, Kunigal Taluk towards his village, a Tata Sumo bearing Reg.No.KA-05/D-3507 came from Yediyur side towards Kunigal side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased, due to which deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot.
5. The owner of the offending vehicle did not appear and was placed exparte before the Tribunal. Insurance Company filed their written statement and contested the claim petition. During the enquiry before the tribunal, the claimants have established the occurrence of the accident.
6. The tribunal, after evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence has held that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. As regards the liability, the Tribunal held that in view of the policy in existence, Insurance Company was liable to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle. As the deceased was doing carpentry work and agriculture, his income was taken at Rs.8,000/- p.m. As the family of the deceased consists of five members, deducted 1/4th towards his personal and living expenses and since the deceased was aged 34 years, applied the multiplier 16 and awarded compensation of Rs.16,12,800/- towards loss of dependency. In all, the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.16,82,800/- with interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization under the following heads:
Sl Headings Amount No Rs.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the tribunal was not justified in deducting 1/4th towards his personal and living expenses and has erred in assessing the income of the injured at Rs.8,000/- as the deceased was a daily wager and that the compensation awarded towards loss of dependency and other conventional head are on the higher side. Hence, prays for setting aside the impugned judgment and contended that the compensation of Rs.16,12,800/- is exorbitant and prays for reduction in the compensation. It is also contended that the interest awarded at 8% is also on the higher side.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that the tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence and material on record, has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- p.m., and awarded just and fair compensation of Rs.16,12,800/- with 8% interest, which does not calls for interference and prays for dismissal of the appeal.
9. On careful evaluation of the material on record, it is seen that the claimants being legal representatives of the deceased are the dependents of the deceased who was aged 34 years and prior to the date of accident, i.e., 27.01.2017, he was doing carpentry and agriculture work and earning a sum of Rs.8,000/- p.m. Under such circumstances, the tribunal having regard to the fact that the accident was of the year 2017, has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- p.m., and since the family of the deceased consists of five members, applying multiplier 16 as deceased was aged 34 years, determined the compensation of Rs.16,12,800/- (Rs.1,00,800/- x 16) towards ‘loss of dependency’. However, the compensation awarded by the tribunal under other conventional heads is just and reasonable and does not calls for interference.
10. In this backdrop, it is relevant to state that there is no dispute about the accident, death of the deceased and liability has been rightly fastened on the Insurance Company. As the accident is of the year 2017 and the deceased was aged about 34 years, hale and healthy doing carpentry and agriculture work prior to the date of accident, income of the deceased determined at Rs.8,000/- p.m., is on the lower side and it requires to be intervened. Hence, I am of the opinion that the income of the deceased has to be taken as Rs.10,000/- instead of Rs.8,000/- p.m. As per the ratio laid down in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, 40% of the income has to be added to the monthly earnings to arrive at compensation towards loss of dependency. If 40% of the income is added, the monthly income comes to Rs.14,000/- p.m., (Rs.10,000/- + 40% of 10,000/-).
11. However, the tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.16,82,800/- with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. I am of the opinion that the Tribunal has considered the evidence and material available on record and has awarded a reasonable compensation of Rs.16,82,800/- along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a.
12. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the judgment and award dated 24.03.2018 passed by the MACT/Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru made in MVC No.1543/2017 is confirmed. Appellant-insurer shall deposit the compensation with interest before the tribunal within four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment and on such deposit, the same shall be disbursed to the claimants, on proper identification. However, the impugned judgment and award, in so far as it relates to the rate of interest, apportionment and deposit is concerned, shall remain unaltered. The amount already deposited, if any, shall be adjusted. The amount in deposit before this court and the lower court records shall be transmitted to the tribunal forthwith.
There shall be no order as to the costs. Office to draw the decree accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE bnv*