IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT M.F.A.No.927/2014 [MV] BETWEEN:
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., PRABHU BUILDING, MAIN ROAD PUTTUR, D.K., NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE 5TH & 6TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.
...APPELLANT (BY SRI. A N KRISHNA SWAMY, ADV.) AND:
1. SMT. N SEETHALAKSHMI W/O LATE K.SHAMA BHAT NOW AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/O NO.1649/27 MANDASMITHA, LIC COLONY NEAR NUTTANA COLLEGE DAVANAGERE-577 004.
2. G.K.PRASAD S/O LATE K.SHAMA BHAT NOW AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/O NO.1857, 22ND MAIN 25TH CROSS, II SECTOR HSR LAYOUT, BANGALORE.
3. K.PRADEEP S/O LATE K.SHAMA BHAT NOW AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/O NO.41, 2ND FLOOR, 3RD CROSS KRISHNAMURTHY LAYOUT TAVARAKERE MAIN ROAD BANGALORE-560 029.
4. UMESH POOJARY S/O LATE VASU POOJARY NOW AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/AT KEKKAJE HOUSE KODIMBADY VILLAGE PUTTUR TALUK, DISTRICT D.K. PIN-574 201.
5. DINESH POOJARY S/O KARIYAPPA POOJARY MAJOR R/O BANNUR PUTTUR KASABA VILLAGE PUTTUR TALUK, D.K.
PIN-574 201.
6. SAYED AFAQ S/O SAYED IBRAHIM MAJOR R/O SADAT MANZIL BANNUR PUTTUR TALUK, D.K. PIN-574 201.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.S VISHWAJITH SHETTY, ADV. FOR R1-R3 R4 TO R6 ARE SERVED) THIS M.F.A. FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.06.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.707/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE 5TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALORE, SITTING AT PUTTUR, D.K, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.13,30,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., is in appeal, being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded under the judgment and award dated 29.06.2013 passed in MVC No.707/2012 on the file of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K. Mangalore sitting at Puttur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short).
2. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation for the death of one Sri.K.Sham Bhat in a road traffic accident. It is stated that on 22.04.2011, the deceased husband of the claimant was waiting for the vehicle by the side of by-pass road, a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA- 21/J-2744 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the deceased. As a result, the deceased fell down and sustained head injuries. He was immediately taken to Mahaveer Medical Center at Puttur and then to KMC Hospital at Mangalore. Subsequently, he succumbed to injuries. It is stated that the deceased was a retired Additional Divisional Manager in Life Insurance Corporation of India. He was sole earning member of the family. It is stated that the deceased was getting pension of Rs.21,250/- p.m., and in addition he was earning Rs.2,000/- p.m., by doing tuition. He was aged about 63 years as on the date of accident.
3. On issuance of notice, respondent No.3 appeared and filed its objections denying the claim petition averments. It also contended that the accident occurred on account of contributory negligence of the deceased.
4. The first claimant/wife of the deceased examined herself as P.W.1 and also examined the doctor as P.W.2 apart from marking the documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P15. The respondent marked Ex.R1-insurance policy.
5. The Tribunal, based on the material on record awarded total compensation of Rs.13,30,000/- on the following heads:
5. Loss of dependency :: Rs.13,02,000/-
Total Rs.13,30,000/-
While awarding the above compensation, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.23,250/- p.m., and took 1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased and also adopted the multiplier of 7. The insurer being aggrieved by the deduction of 1/3rd by the Tribunal is before this Court in this appeal.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/ insurer and learned counsel for the respondents/ claimants. Perused the material on record.
7. The only contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellant/insurer is that the Tribunal committed an error in taking deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased while awarding the compensation. It is his submission that wife is the first claimant and she is the only dependant. Claimants No.2 and 3 are major sons and they are not dependants. When only one dependant is there, the Tribunal ought to have taken deduction of 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased. Further, he relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS v/s DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants would submit that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just compensation, which needs no interference. She submits that there are three claimants wife and two children. Therefore, deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased taken by the Tribunal is proper.
9. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, the only point which falls for consideration is as to whether the Tribunal is justified in taking 1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased while computing the compensation?
10. Answer to the above point would be in the negative for the following reasons:
The accident occurred on 22.04.2011 involving the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-21/J-2744 and the accidental death of husband of the first claimant are not in dispute in this appeal. The insurer is before this court urging only one ground that the Tribunal committed error in taking 1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased while computing the compensation. The claimants are wife and two major sons of the deceased. Claimants No.2 and 3 sons of the deceased are aged 33 years and 26 years. There is no evidence on record to show that the claimants No.2 and 3 were depending upon the deceased. The first claimant, wife of the deceased is the only dependant of her husband deceased K.Sham Bhat.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in SARLA VERMA case (supra) has held that wherever the deceased is bachelor and wherever there is only one dependant, the deduction towards personal expenses had to be taken at 50%. Following the said decision, the compensation is modified to the following extent:
1. Loss of dependency 23,250 – 50% = 11625x12x7 :: Rs. 9,76,500/-
2. Conventional heads :: Rs. 70,000/-
Total Rs.10,46,500/-
Thus, the claimants would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.10,46,500/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization as against Rs.13,30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 29.06.2013 passed in MVC No.707/2012 on the file of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangalore sitting at Puttur is modified. Thereby the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reduced by Rs.2,83,500/-.
Sd/-
JUDGE mpk/-* CT:bms