IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. SREENIVASE GOWDA M.F.A. NO. 5456/2012 (MVC) BETWEEN:-
M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED SUNDER ARCADE OPP. SUBURB BUS STAND MYSORE NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICE 5TH FLOOR KRISHI BHAVAN NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-560001 REP. BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. A M VENKATESH, ADV.,) AND:-
1. SMT. DAKSHAYANI AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS W/O SHAMBHULINGAPPA R/O GOWDAGERE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT 2. SRI SHAMBHULINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS S/O MALLAPPA R/O GOWDAGERE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT 3. SRI SWAMY S/O CHANNAVEEREGOWDA KEMMALU VILLAGE SATHANUR POST & HOBLI KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMNAGAR DISTRICT (OWNER OF TEMPO BEARING REG NO. KA-11/7582) ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SUMANTH L B, ADV., FOR R1 & R2;
R3 SERVED) MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:03.03.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.109/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, MALAVALLI, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF Rs.5,22,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
J U D G M E N T This appeal is by the insurer of offending vehicle challenging the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal both on the ground of liability as well as quantum.
2. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this appeal is heard and disposed of finally. Perused the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal including the records.
3. As there is no dispute regarding death of one Anusha in a road traffic accident occurred on 13.10.2010 due to rash and negligent driving of a Passenger tempo bearing registration No.KA-11/7582 by its driver, points that arise for consideration in the appeal are:
“1) Whether Tribunal was justified in fastening liability on the insurer of offending vehicle?
2) Whether quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for reduction?”
4. Sri. A.M. Venkatesh, learned counsel appearing for the insurer of offending vehicle submits that the driver had no valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle as on the date of the accident. The Tribunal without considering the same has erred in fastening the liability on the insurer of offending vehicle. Regarding quantum, learned counsel submits that compensation awarded both under the head loss of dependency as well as conventional head is on the higher side. Therefore, he prays for allowing the appeal both on the ground of liability as well as quantum.
5. Sri. Sumanth L.B. learned counsel appearing for the claimants submits that the insurer except contending that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle as on the date of the accident did not establish their contention by adducing cogent evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in fastening the liability on the insurer. Regarding quantum, learned counsel submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and there is no scope for reduction. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the appeal in its entirety.
Regarding liability:-
6. The insurer of offending vehicle except examining an official of their insurance company as RW.1 and contending that notice was issued to the owner of the offending vehicle calling upon him to produce the driving licence of the driver, did not adduce cogent evidence to establish their contention that the driver had no licence to drive the offending vehicle. Considering the same, the Tribunal was justified in fastening the liability on the insurer of the offending vehicle.
Regarding compensation:-
7. It is a case of death of a minor girl, aged about 14 years, studying in 8th standard at the time of the accident. Claim petition is filed by her parents.
8. Sri. A.M. Venkatesh, learned counsel appearing for the insurer submits that the Tribunal has committed an error in taking the notional income of deceased at Rs.36,000/- and applying the multiplier of ‘18’ based on the age of deceased instead of taking the notional income of deceased at Rs.30,000/- p.a. and applying the fixed multiplier of ‘15’ and erred in awarding compensation of Rs.3,24,000/- under the head loss of dependency. He submits that even compensation of Rs.48,000/- awarded under the conventional head is also on the higher side. Regarding compensation awarded towards medical expenses, he fairly submits that it may not be disturbed as it is based on the medical bills produced by the claimants.
9. Whereas, learned counsel for the claimants submits that Rs.3,24,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of dependency for death of a minor girl aged about 14 years being on the lower side, it need not be interfered with.
10. In view of the fact that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Gopal and another vs. Lala and others reported in 2014 (1) SCC 244 has awarded a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of 10 year old boy, under the head loss of dependency the compensation of Rs.3,24,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for the death of 14 years old girl studying in 8th standard cannot be said to be on higher side. As per the latest judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi and others, a sum of Rs.30,000/- is awarded under conventional heads as against Rs.48,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. As Rs.1,50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses is based on the medical bills produced by the claimants, it is just and proper and it does not call for reduction.
11. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reassessed as under:-
The claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.5,04,000/- as against Rs.5,22,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till realisation.
12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed-in-part.
The judgment and award dated 03.03.2012 passed in MVC No.109/2010 by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Malavalli, stands modified. The claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.5,04,000/- as against Rs.5,22,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till realisation.
13. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the aforesaid compensation amount together with interest after deducting the amount if any already deposited within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
14. Apportionment, deposit and release of the compensation payable by the insurance company to the claimants after deducting the amount if any already deposited shall be in the ratio of award of the Tribunal.
15. Amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement in favour of the claimants in terms of the award of the Tribunal.
No order as to costs.
SD/- JUDGE PMR