IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4295/2014(MV) Between:
The United India Insurance Company Limited No.40, 1st Floor, Lakshmi Complex K.R.Road, Bengaluru – 560 002.
Represented by its Regional Manager The United India Insurance Company Limited Regional Office, 6th Floor, Krishi Bhavana Hudson Circle, Bengaluru ... Appellant (BY Sri. C. Shankar Reddy, Advocate) And:
1. Smt. Gangamma W/o late Venkatesh Aged about 42 years 2. Ravikumar S/o late Venkatesh Aged about 24 years 3. Venkata Raju S/o late Venkatesh Aged about 23 years All are R/at No.3 Arale Dibba (Ananda Nagar), Nelamangala Taluk Bengaluru Rural District – 562 123.
4. The Managing Director BMTC, K.H.Road Shanthinagar Bengaluru – 560 027. ... Respondents This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 03.12.2013 passed in MVC.No.4327/2010 on the file of the Member, MACT, 20th Additional Small Causes Judge, Bengaluru, awarding a compensation of Rs.5,67,420/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization of the amount.
This appeal is coming on for Orders, this day, the Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the quantum of compensation awarded in MVC.No.4327/2010 on the file of Court of MACT XX Additional Small Causes Judge, Bengaluru, wherein a total compensation of Rs.9,34,840/- has been awarded with interest @ 6% per annum to the claimants/respondent No.1 to 3 for the death of one Venkatesh in a road traffic accident involving a B.M.T.C. bus bearing registration No.KA-01F-2249, which was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company.
2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
3. It is his contention that the Tribunal while awarding compensation to the deceased who was working as a coolie, has added additional amount of 30% towards future prospects, though the claimants were not entitled for the said amount, because the deceased was not having permanent source of income. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has awarded higher compensation under the conventional heads and therefore, submits that the total compensation awarded is exorbitant and accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal.
4. The case of the claimants is that on 26.02.2010, around 3.45 pm, when the deceased namely, Venkatesh along with his wife was proceeding as pedestrian near Bhuvaneshwari Tent House, Hesaragatta main road on the extreme left side of the footpath, at that time, the driver of B.M.T.C. bus bearing registration No. KA-01-F-2249 drove the said bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased from behind and the left wheel ran over the head and body of the deceased, due to which, deceased sustained severe fatal injuries and died at the spot.
5. According to the claimants, the deceased was working as a coolie and was earning Rs.250/- per day. The claimants are wife and children of the deceased. A total compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- was sought to be awarded.
6. The Tribunal while considering the evidence and material on record, has not accepted that the deceased was earning Rs.7,500/- to 8,000/- per month by doing coolie work. However, taking the notional income as Rs.4,500/- per month and adding 30% towards future prospects and deducting 1/4th of the income towards personal expenses and by applying ‘15’ as the multiplier, awarded a total sum of Rs.7,89,840/- under the head ‘Loss of Dependency’. The same cannot be said to be on the higher side. The total compensation of Rs.9,34,840/- awarded by the Tribunal is based on the evidence and material on record.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that there are no justifiable grounds to interfere with the findings recorded by the Tribunal so as to reduce the compensation awarded therein. Accordingly, this appeal being devoid of merits, is dismissed.
In view of the dismissal of the above appeal, I.A.Nos.1/2014 and 2/2014 does not survive for consideration and the same are also disposed of.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional MACT for disbursement as compensation to the claimants forthwith.
Sd/- JUDGE NR/-