IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT M.F.A.No.9177 OF 2015 (MV - D) BETWEEN UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., OPP. VINAYAKA TALKIES, B.H.ROAD, SHIMOGA.
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., 1ST FLOOR, PLOT NO. EL 94, TTC INDUSTRIAL AREA, MIDC, MAHAPE, NAVI MUMBAI – 400 701.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI.H.N.KESHAVA PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE) AND 1. CHANNABASAPPA, S/O ADDIGAL RANGAPPA, NOW AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 2. SMT. VEENA, W/O CHANNABASAPPA, NOW AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT HONNAVILE VILLAGE, SHIMOGA TALUK – 577 201.
3. SISTER ASHA, MAJOR, HEAD MISTRESS, TERESA SCHOOL, MAJJIGENAHALLI, KAVALAGUNDI, BHADRAVATHI TALUK – 577 301.
4. LAKSHMIKANTHA B.P., S/O PADMANABHA B.K., NOW AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/O NAVILE BASAPURA VILLAGE, BHADRAVATHI TALUK – 577 301.
... RESPONDENTS (R1, R2 AND R4 SERVED UNREPRESENTED;
R3- NOTICE DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 12.06.2019) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.07.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.876/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT – VI, SHIVAMOGGA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.4,60,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The appellant-Insurance Company has filed this appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, challenging the judgment and award dated 20.07.2015 in M.V.C.No.876/2013 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and M.A.C.T-VI., Shivamogga.
2. Though the matter is listed for orders, with the consent of learned Counsel for the appellant, it is taken up for disposal.
3. The respondents are served with notice and they are unrepresented.
4. The respondents-claimants filed the aforesaid claim petition under Section 166 of MV Act seeking compensation for the death of their minor daughter, aged 6 years as on the date of her death. It is stated on 18.7.2013, when the deceased was returning from the school and alighting the school bus, the driver of the school bus drove the same in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased. In the said accident, the deceased daughter of the claimants sustained grievous head injuries and succumbed to the injuries. Respondent No.3-insurance company appeared before the Tribunal, filed its objection contending that the compensation claimed is exhorbitant and it was also stated that the driver of the school bus had not possessed driving licence to drive the vehicle.
5. Claimant No.1-father of the deceased minor girl examined as P.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to P.13. The Tribunal, on consideration of the material on record both oral and documentary, awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,60,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The appellant-insurance company being aggrieved by the same, is before this Court.
6. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant.
7. Learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side as the deceased was aged 6 years as on the date of accident. The Tribunal committed an error in taking Rs.30,000/- per annum as notional income of the minor deceased.
8. On perusal of the appeal papers, I am of the view that the Tribunal has rightly allowed the petition and awarded just compensation at Rs.4,60,000/-. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of KISHAN GOPAL AND ANOTHER VS. LALA AND OTHERS reported in (2014)1 SCC 244, the claimants are entitled for just compensation as they have lost their affectionate minor child. The Tribunal has rightly relied upon Kishan Gopal’s case (cited supra) and has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/- p.a. and rightly adopted the multiplier of 15. In my view, the Tribunal has rightly granted the compensation.
Accordingly, the appeal is rejected.
The amount in deposit be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal.
In view of disposal of appeal, I.A.No.2/2016 does not survive for consideration, the same is rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE Cs CT:SN