IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA AND THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.3146 of 2017 (MV-D) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.6186 of 2017 (MV-D) IN M.F.A. No. 3146 of 2017 BETWEEN :
MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD; NO.266, GANGADHARAPPA COMPLEX, SUNKADAKATTE, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, VISHWANEEDAM POST BANGALORE – 560 090.
REPRESENTED BY UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD:
BRANCH OFFICE, P.B. NO.108 VENKATESHWARA BUILDING B.M. ROAD, HASSAN – 573 201. NOW BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICE KRISHI BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE – 560 001 BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI.B.A.RAMAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. RANGAPPA S/O.KENGAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 2. SAROJAMMA W/O.RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS BOTH RESIDENTS OF MADANAHALLI ARASIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT PIN – 573 103.
3. CHAYA W/O.RAJASHEKARA D/O.RANGAPPA AGED 27 YEARS HIREHALLI VILLAGE, BELUR TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT PIN – 573 115.
4. HANUMANTHAPPA AGED 42 YEARS S/O.KRISHAPPA KARIHOBANAHALLI BANGALORE NORTH BANGALORE – 91. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.JAGADEESH.H.T., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3, SRI.K.N.RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-4) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 03.02.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.165/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELUR, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.19,29,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION AND ETC., IN M.F.A. No. 6186 of 2017 BETWEEN :
1. RANGAPPA S/O.KENGAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/O MADANAHALLI VILLAGE ARSIKERE TALUK – 573 103.
2. SAROJAMMA W/O.RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/O MADANAHALLI VILLAGE ATRSIKERE TALUK – 573 103.
3. CHAYA W/O.RAJASHEKARA D/O.RANGAPPA R/O.HEREHALLI VILLAGE BELUR TALUK – 573 115.
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT HEREHALLI VILLAGE BELUR TALUK – 573 115. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI.JAGADEESH.H.T., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. HANUMATHAPPA.K S/O.KRISHANAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/O KARIHOBNAHLLI BANGALORE – 91.
2. THE MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.266, GANGADHARAPPA COMPLEX, SUKADAKATTE MAGADI MAIN ROAD VISHAWA NEEDAM BANGALORE – 90.
REPRESENTED BY ITS:- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE P.B. NO.108, VENKATEWARA BUILDING, B.M. ROAD HASSAN – 573 201. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.B.A.RAMAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:03.02.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.165/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT, BELURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC., THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JYOTI MULIMANI J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Though these appeals are listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, they are heard finally.
2. MFA.No.3146/2017 has been filed by the Insurance Company, while MFA.No.6186/2017 has been filed by the claimants, both being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Court of Senior Civil Judge & Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Belur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for the sake of convenience) in MVC.No.165/2016, by judgment and award dated 03.02.2017.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein shall be referred to in terms of their status and ranking before the Tribunal.
4. The claimants have filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- on account of death of Krishnamurthy in the road traffic accident that occurred on 22.10.2015 at about 4.30 p.m. According to the claimants, when Krishnamurthy was riding his motor cycle bearing No.KA-52/K-5565 near Kudli cross at about 4.30 p.m., the driver of the insured vehicle being Tata goods vehicle bearing No.KA-26/4141 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and collided head on against the motor cycle, as a consequence of which, the rider - Krishnamurthy fell down and died on the spot. It is stated that the deceased was aged about 24 years as on the date of the accident and was employed with M/s.Sun Castings Presser Die Casting Solutions and was earning a sum of Rs.17,500/- per month and was also doing agricultural work and thus, was earning a total sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. The claimants are the parents and major married sister of the deceased – Krishnamurthy. That on account of untimely death of Krishnamurthy, the family had lost his earnings and love and affection of the deceased. Hence, they sought compensation on various heads.
5. In response to the notices issued by the Tribunal, the first respondent, being the owner of the insured vehicle appeared through his counsel, but did not file any objections. Respondent No.2 – Insurance Company entered appearance and filed its objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the third claimant being the married sister was not depending on the income of the deceased and therefore, she is not entitled to any compensation. Further, it was stated that as on the date of the accident, the licence was not in force and that there was violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, and therefore, they are not liable to pay any compensation and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for its consideration:
«ªÁzÁA±ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ “1. ¢£ÁAPÀ: 22.10.2015 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀAeÉ 4.30 UÀAmÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è UÀÄ©â vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, PÉÆArè PÁæ¸ï, J£ï.ºÉƸÀºÀ½î UÉÃmï, PÉ.E.©. £ÉÃgÀ gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°è 1£Éà CfðzÁgÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ ªÀÄÈvÀ PÀȵÚÀªÀÄÆwð gÀªÀgÀÄ vÀ£Àß ¨Á§ÄÛ PÉJ-52-PÉ-5565gÀ §eÁeï ¥À®ìgï ¨ÉÊPï£À°è §gÀĪÁUÀ w¥ÀlÆgÀÄ PÀqɬÄAzÀ CAzÀgÉ JzÀÄgÀÄUÀqɬÄAzÀ §AzÀ PÉJ-26-4141gÀ mÁmÁ UÀÆqïì ªÁºÀ£ÀzÀ ZÁ®PÀ£À ¤®ðPÀë åvÀ£À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CeÁUÀgÀÆPÀvÉAiÀÄ ZÁ®£É¬ÄAzÀ dgÀÄVzÀ ªÁºÀ£À C¥ÀWÁvÀzÀ°è UÁAiÀÄUÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀÄÈvÀ¥ÀlÖ£ÉAzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ vÁªÀÅ DvÀ£À ªÁgÀ¸ÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ CªÀ®A©üvÀgÉAzÀÄ CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ ¸Á©üÃvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉAiÉÄÃ?
2. ºÁUÁzÀgÉ, AiÀiÁjAzÀ, JµÀÄÖ ¥ÀjºÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ºÀPÉÆÌvÁÛAiÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä CºÀðgÀÄ?
3. AiÀiÁªÀ DzÉñÀ CxÀªÁ LwÃ¥ÀÄð?”
7. In order to substantiate their claim, the first claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and produced twelve documents which were marked as Exs.P1 to P12 and one Sri.Rajesh, being the Officer of HRD was examined as P.W.2 and he has produced two documents which were marked as Exs.P.13 and P.14. On behalf of the respondent No.2, Administrative Officer of the Insurance Company by name Narendra K.N. was examined as R.W.1 and he produced two documents which were marked as Exs.R.1 and R.2.
8. On the basis of the evidence on record, the Tribunal answered issue No.1 in the affirmative and issue No.2, partly in the affirmative and awarded compensation of Rs.19,29,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
9. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, both the Insurance Company as well as the claimants have preferred their respective appeals, seeking reduction in the compensation and enhancement thereof respectively. In the circumstances, both the appeals have been heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.
10. We have heard Sri.Jagadeesh H.T., learned counsel appearing for the claimants, Sri.B.A.Ramakrishna, learned counsel for the Insurance Company and also Sri.K.N.Ramesh, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 in MFA No.3146/2017 and perused the material on record.
11. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.15,500/- per month by placing reliance on Ex.P.9. It is also stated that Ex.P.13 does not bear the seal and signature of the employer of the deceased and hence, Tribunal could not have relied upon the same. He next contended that the Tribunal erred in placing reliance on the admission of P.W.2 who deposed that he had not produced any document evidencing employment and receipt of salary from the Company by the deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have considered the categorical admissions and ought to have assessed the income of the deceased notionally for computing ‘loss of dependency’. Lastly, it was also contended that the Tribunal erred in awarding a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- towards ‘loss of love and affection’ which is on the higher side and contended that the Insurance Company has also preferred its appeal and the grounds urged therein may be taken as part and parcel of the contentions in this appeal and prayed for setting aside the judgment and award of the Tribunal.
12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants contended that the Tribunal has not properly considered the contentions taken by them in the claim petition. It is also submitted that the Tribunal has failed to consider the evidence of PW.1. Further, it is submitted that the deceased was working in a private Company and was earning a sum of Rs.17,500/- per month and the Tribunal ought to have added 50% of the income towards future prospects while determining the compensation under the head ‘loss of dependency’. He also contended that the compensation awarded under the conventional heads are also meager. Lastly, he contended that the claimants have also preferred appeal for enhancement of compensation and the grounds urged therein may be taken as part and parcel of the contentions in this appeal and prayed for dismissal of the appeal filed by the Insurance Company by allowing the appeal filed by the claimants.
13. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and respondents, the following points would arise for our consideration:-
i. Whether the award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and whether the claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation ?
ii. What order?
14. There is no dispute that the deceased - Krishnamurthy died on 22.10.2015 in the road accident on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the insured vehicle. The Insurance Company has preferred the appeal assailing the award and has sought for reduction in the compensation amount.
15. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.19,29,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization on the following heads:-
16. The accident occurred on 22.10.2015 when the deceased was aged about 24 years. It is established by the claimants that the deceased was earning a gross salary of Rs.15,500/- per month. But as could be seen from Ex.P9 i.e., salary slip of the deceased for the month of January, 2015, a sum of Rs.1,500/- was paid towards conveyance and a sum of Rs.663/- towards canteen charges and a sum of Rs.200/- towards professional tax was being deducted. The above mentioned allowance and deductions cannot be included in the salary of the deceased. Therefore, after deduction of the above mentioned allowances from the salary of the deceased and after adding provident fund of Rs.840/-, we assess the salary of the deceased at Rs.13,977/-. As per the dictum 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, 40% of the income shall have to be added towards future prospects. If 40% of the income towards future prospects is added to the monthly income of Rs.13,977/-, (40% of 13977=5591) it comes to Rs.19,568/- per month. The deceased was aged 24 years and a bachelor. Therefore, 50% of the income of Rs.19,568/- is deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, it comes to Rs.9,784/-. When the same is annualized and multiplied by ‘18’, it comes to Rs.21,13,344/-. Hence, we propose to award Rs.21,13,344/- as against Rs.16,74,000/- awarded by the Tribunal on the head of ‘loss of dependency’.
17. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. NANU RAM AND OTHERS reported in 2018 ACJ 2782 (SC), claimant Nos. 1 and 2, being the parents of the deceased, are entitled for ‘loss of filial consortium’ of Rs.30,000/- each amounting to Rs.60,000/-. Claimant No. 3 being the sister of the deceased is entitled for Rs.30,000/- towards ‘loss of love and affection’. A sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded on the head ‘loss of estate’ and another sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards ‘funeral expenses’. In all, claimants in MFA No.6186/2017 are entitled to Rs.22,34,000/-.
18. In the result, the re-assessed compensation is as under:
1 Loss of dependency Rs. 21,13,344/-
2 Loss of filial consortium Rs. 60,000/-
3 Loss of love and affection to claimant No.3 Rs. 30,000/-
4 Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-
5 Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/-
Rs.22,33,344/-
TOTAL Rs.22,34,000/-
19. The aforesaid compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization, instead of 9% p.a. as awarded by the Tribunal, since we find considerable force in the argument of learned counsel for the insurance company that this Court as well as the Tribunal have been normally awarding interest at the rate of 6% p.a.
20. The re-assessed compensation shall be apportioned and deposited in the following manner:
60% to the mother of the deceased, 40% to the father of the deceased after excluding Rs.30,000/- to the sister of the deceased.
75% of the compensation awarded to the mother of the deceased shall be deposited in any Post Office and / or Nationalized Bank for an initial period of ten years. She shall be entitled to draw periodical interest on the said deposit. The balance compensation shall be released to her after due identification.
50% of the compensation awarded to the father of the deceased shall be deposited in any Post Office or Nationalized Bank for an initial period of five years. He shall be entitled to draw periodical interest on the said deposit. The balance compensation shall be released to him after due identification.
The entire compensation awarded to the sister of the deceased shall be released to her after due identification.
21. The Insurance Company to deposit the re-assessed compensation with upto date interest at the rate of 6% p.a. within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.
22. In the result, the appeal filed by the claimants i.e., MFA No.6186/2017 is allowed in part, while the appeal filed by the insurance company i.e., MFA No.3146/2017 is disposed in the aforesaid terms.
Parties to bear their respective costs.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith.
Office is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE VMB