IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B. V. NAGARATHNA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5382 OF 2016 (MV-D) CONNECTED WITH MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5383 OF 2016 (MV-I) IN M.F.A. NO.5382 OF 2016:
BETWEEN:
1. V. PRAMILA W/O. LATE MUNIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.
2. B.M. LAVANYA D/O. LATE MUNIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS.
3. B.M. BHOOMIKA D/O. LATE MUNIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS.
PETITIONER NOS.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS, REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, SMT. V. PRAMILA, W/O. LATE MUNIRAJU.
4. GOPAIAH @ GOPAPPA S/O. LATE PUTTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS.
5. NARAYANAMMA W/O. GOPAIAH @ GOPAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT BODANHOSAHALLI VILLAGE, SAMETHANAHALLI POST, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT.
(BY SRI P. SURESH, ADV.) AND:
... APPELLANTS 1. M/S. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. BANGALORE REGIONAL OFFICE (HUB), 2-B, UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE, P. KALINGA RAO ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 027.
PRESENT ADDRESS: BANGALORE REGIONAL OFFICE, T.P. HUB, NO.9/2, MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBERS, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS INCHARGE MANAGER.
2. H.B. SHIVA SHANKAR MAJOR IN AGE, RESIDING AT NO.148, CHANNASANDRA COLONY, CHANNASANDRA, BANGALORE EAST, BANGALORE - 560 067.
3. K. AMBARISH S/O. KRISHNAPPA, MAJOR IN AGE, RESIDING AT NO.414/2, B.E.L. KRISHNAMURTHY HOUSE, HORAMAVU, BANGALORE - 560 043.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S.T. RAJASHEKARA, ADV., FOR R-1, & SRI CHITHAPPA, ADV., FOR R-2) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 6-4-2016 PASSED IN M.V.C. NO.513 OF 2011 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XX ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE & M.A.C.T., BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN M.F.A. NO.5383 OF 2016:
BETWEEN:
NAGARAJU S/O. HANUMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT OLD NO.165, NEW NO.312, LAKSHMANA MURTHY NAGAR, RAMAMURTHY NAGAR, BANGALORE.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI P. SURESH, ADV.) AND:
1. M/S. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. BANGALORE REGIONAL OFFICE (HUB), 2-B, UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE, P. KALINGA RAO ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 027.
PRESENT ADDRESS: BANGALORE REGIONAL OFFICE, T.P. HUB, NO.9/2, MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBERS, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS INCHARGE MANAGER.
2. H.B. SHIVA SHANKAR MAJOR IN AGE, RESIDING AT NO.148, CHANNSANDRA COLONY, BANGALORE EAST, BANGALORE - 560 067.
3. K. AMBARISH S/O. KRISHNAPPA, MAJOR IN AGE, RESIDING AT NO.414/2, B.E.L. KRISHNAMURTHY HOUSE, HORAMAVU, BANGALORE - 560 043.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S.T. RAJASHEKARA, ADV., FOR R-1, & SRI CHITHAPPA, ADV., FOR R-2) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 6-4-2016 PASSED IN M.V.C. NO.514 OF 2011 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XX ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE & M.A.C.T., BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, NATARAJAN, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T Though these appeals are listed for orders, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, they are heard finally.
2. MFA No.5382/2016 and MFA No.5383/2016 are filed by the claimants by assailing the common judgment and award dated 06.04.2016 passed in MVC No.513/2011 and MVC No.514/2011 by the XXII Additional Small Causes Judge and XX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and M.A.C.T., Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’).
3. We have heard the arguments of Sri P.Suresh, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri S.T.Rajashekara, learned counsel for the respondents.
4. For the sake of convenience, parties herein shall be referred to in terms of their status before the trial Court.
5. The appellant-claimants in MFA No.5382/2016 filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- on account of the death of Muniraju, the husband of the first appellant/claimant contending that on 30.12.2010, at about 7.45 p.m., the said Muniraju was proceeding as a pillion rider on a motor cycle bearing registration No.KA- 03/EU-3290 driven by Nagaraju. When they reached near Samrat Hotel, Banaswadi Main road, Bengaluru, all of a sudden a Tempo vehicle (Tata 407) bearing registration No.KA-53/1863, driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger human life dashed against the motorcycle, due to which, the pillion rider fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Muniraju was taken to the hospital for treatment, but he died on the way to the hospital.
6. The claimants contended that the deceased was working as Projection Welder at Velkalyan Products and in another company at Bengaluru and he was earning Rs.12,000/- per month and contributed his entire income to the family. The claimants were depending on the income of the deceased for their livelihood and due to the sudden demise of the deceased, they were facing lot of mental agony, discomfort and financial difficulties. Hence, they claimed for compensation on various heads.
7. The appellant in MFA No.5383/2016 has also filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- contending that on 30.12.2010 at about 7.45 p.m., when he was riding motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-03/EU-3290, very carefully and cautiously by observing traffic rules and when he reached near Samrat Hotel on Banaswadi Main road, Bengaluru, at that time, all of a sudden a Tempo vehicle (Tata 407) registration bearing No.KA-53/1863 driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger human life dashed against the claimant and also pillion rider, due to which he fell down and sustained injuries. Then he was shifted to Koshys Hospital, Bengaluru and after taking first aid treatment, he was shifted to Suraksha Nursing Home, Bengaluru wherein he took treatment from 30.12.2010 to 03.01.2011 as an in-patient. He underwent several diagnostic investigations and even after the treatment, he was advised to take bed rest and follow-up treatment. That he has spent Rs.30,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards food and nourishment, another Rs.10,000/- towards conveyance. He further contended that he was working as Welding Pressure operator at Velkalyan Products, Bengaluru and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month (including Over-time). Due to accidental injuries, he was unable to attend to his work and suffered loss of income from the date of accident. He suffered permanent disability due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Hence, prayed for granting the compensation.
8. Pursuant to the notice issued by the Tribunal, respondent Nos.1 to 3 appeared through their counsel and filed their statement of objections. Respondent No.1- insurance company admitted the issuance of insurance policy in favour of respondent No.2 in respect of Tata 407 vehicle bearing No. KA-53/1863 and contended that if any liability was to be fixed on the insurance company, it is subject to terms and conditions of the policy and also subject to possessing a valid and effective driving license by the driver of the vehicle in question and further contended that Tata 407 vehicle was registered and insured with respondent No.1, which is a commercial goods carrying vehicle and the same had be driven by the driver holding license to drive the transport vehicle. But in this case, the driver namely, Lal Bihare Bole who was driving Tata 407 vehicle was holding license to drive only a light motor vehicle (Non-Transport). Respondent No.2 by entrusting his Tata 407 to a driver who had no driving license to drive commercial – transport vehicle had violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Further, respondent No.1 contended that the vehicle in question was not standing in the name of respondent No.2. Further that the accident in question had occurred due to negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle bearing No. KA-03/EU-3290 in which the deceased was traveling as a pillion rider and the injured/claimant was riding the motorcycle. The rider of the motorcycle was solely responsible for the accident. The accident did not take place due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the Tata 407. That the petition is bad for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties. Further, it was contended that the claim made by the claimants were excessive and exorbitant. Hence, the learned counsel for the insurer prayed for dismissing the claim petitions.
9. Respondent No.2 appeared and filed statement of objections and contended that he was the earlier owner of the Tempo (Tata 407) bearing registration No.KA-53/1863. The said vehicle was sold to respondent No.3 on 09.12.2009. The transfer of ownership had been duly recorded in the RC Book of the vehicle. He further contended that on the date of accident i.e., 30.12.2010, respondent No.3-Ambarish was the registered owner of the vehicle, therefore, it was contended that respondent No.2 was not a necessary and proper party to the petition. Hence, he had no responsibility to answer the claim petitions. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the claim petitions.
10. Respondent No.3 also filed separate statement of objections and admitted that he was the owner of the vehicle in question and the same was purchased from respondent No.2 on 09.12.2009. He further contended that he himself was driving the Tempo (Tata 407) on the main road of Banaswadi in a normal speed by observing all traffic rules. At that time, motorcycle came in high speed and hit Tata 407 and the accident had occurred due to the negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle. However, it was contended that the insurance policy was in force as on the date of accident. It was valid up to 08.12.2011. Therefore, respondent No.3 also prayed for dismissal of the claim petitions.
11. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues in both the cases:
ISSUES IN MVC No.513/2011 1. Whether the petitioners prove that, the deceased Sri Muniraju died due to injuries sustained in a Road Traffic Accident occurred on 30.12.2010 at about 7.45 p.m., near Samrat Hotel, Banaswadi Main Road, on account of rash and negligent driving of the Tempo Vehicle (Tata-407) bearing Reg.No.KA-53-1863 by its driver?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation as claimed? If so, from whom?
3. What Order or Award?
ISSUES IN MVC No.514/2011 1. Whether the petitioner proves that he has sustained grievous injuries in a Road Traffic Accident occurred on 30.12.2010 at about 7.45 p.m., near Samrat Hotel, Banaswadi Main Road, on account of rash and negligent driving of the Tempo Vehicle (Tata-407) bearing Reg.No.KA- 53-1863 by its driver?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation? If so, from whom?
3. What Order or Award?
12. To substantiate the contention of petitioner in MVC No.513/2011 (appellant in MFA No.5382/2016), she examined herself as PW.1 and the petitioner in MVC No.514/2011 (appellant in MFA No.5383/2016) was examined as PW.2. They also got examined three more witnesses as PWs.3 to 5 and got marked 28 documents as per Exs.P1 to 28. The official belonging to respondent No.1 was examined as RW.1 and got marked two documents as per Exs.R1 and R2. Respondent No.2- owner, examined two witnesses as RWs-2 and 3 and also got marked one document as per Ex.R3 and respondent No.3 in both the cases has also examined two witnesses as per RW-4 and RW-5 but no documents were got marked. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal answered issue Nos.1 and 2 in MVC No.513/2011 in the affirmative and awarded compensation of Rs.11,29,784/- to the claimants payable by respondent No.3 - RC owner of the vehicle and also answered issue Nos.1 and 2 (in MVC No.514/2011) in the affirmative and awarded compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the injured claimant payable by respondent No.3 - RC owner of the vehicle, by exonerating respondent Nos.1and 2 in both the cases.
13. Assailing the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, both the claimants have preferred these appeals for enhancement of compensation as well as a challenge is made for having exonerated respondent Nos.1 and 2 and fastening the liability on respondent No.3 - the owner of Tata 407 vehicle.
14. Learned counsel for the appellant claimants in MFA No.5382/2016 contended that the driver of the Tata 407 vehicle was holding a valid and effective driving license for driving light motor vehicle. The driver was also entitled to drive light motor vehicle even without obtaining any separate endorsement for driving transport vehicle from Regional Transport Office. The Hon’ble Apex Court held in the case of Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in AIR 2017 SC 3368 (Mukund Dewangan) has clearly held that the driver who is holding the driving license to drive a light motor vehicle is not required to possess the transport endorsement to drive the transport vehicle. But, the Tribunal committed error by dismissing the petition as against respondent No.1-insurance company and wrongly fastened the liability only on the owner of the offending vehicle. Therefore, learned counsel contended that the findings of the Tribunal fastening the liability on respondent No.3 - owner of the offending vehicle is liable to be set aside and prayed for fastening the liability both on respondent No.3-owner and respondent No.1-insurer of the offending vehicle.
15. Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that in MVC No.513/2011 i.e., MFA No.5382/2016, the deceased-Muniraju was working as Projection Welder at Velkalyan Products and Gayathri Precisions companies and was earning Rs.13,000 /- per month and the claimants produced the salary certificates as per Exs.P10 and 11. They also got examined the author of the salary certificate as PWs.3 and 4. In spite of proving the salary of the deceased for Rs.13,000/- per month, the Tribunal has considered notional income of the deceased at Rs.6,500/- per month, which is very meager. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PWs.3 and 4 and Exs.P10 and 11-salary certificates. Therefore, he prayed for reckoning the salary of the deceased at least Rs.12,000/- per month. The counsel also contended that the age of the deceased was only 36 years at the time of death. However, the Tribunal considered the age of the deceased as 42 years, based upon the post mortem report which is not correct and further contended that the Tribunal also considered future prospects of 30% of the income instead of considering 40%, which is contrary to the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017)16 SCC 680 (Pranay Sethi). Learned counsel also contended that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards loss of consortium to the claimants as per the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Others reported in 2018 ACJ 2782 (SC) (Magma General Insurance Co.) Therefore, learned counsel prayed for enhancing the total compensation.
16. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant who appeared in MFA No.5383/2016 contended that the Tribunal has not considered the documents produced by the injured claimant in respect of sustaining injuries in the accident. He was working in Velkalyan Products. He sustained abrasion on right hand, both the knees and left leg. Ex.P14 is the injury certificate and Ex.P15 is the discharge summary issued by Suraksha Nursing Home and he was admitted for four days in the hospital. He spent more than Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses but the Tribunal awarded only Rs.20,000/- as global compensation to the claimant, which is very meager. Therefore, he prayed for enhancing the same.
17. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent- insurer in both the appeals supported the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and contended that the driver of Tata 407 vehicle did not posses valid driving license and transport endorsement for driving transport vehicle. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly exonerated the insurance company from the liability. Therefore, the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal does not call for interference by this Court. The counsel further contended that no proof of income was produced before Tribunal by the claimants. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly considered notional income of the deceased at Rs.6,500/-
per month and also added 30% of the income towards future prospects. Multiplier 14 has been considered by the Tribunal by taking into consideration the age of the deceased mentioned in the post-mortem report. Also an adequate amount of compensation has also been awarded towards loss of consortium by relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the appeals.
18. Upon hearing the arguments of learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of records, the points that arise for our consideration are:
i. Whether the Tribunal was justified in fastening the liability on the owner of the offending vehicle and exonerating the insurance-company holding that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a transport endorsement in his driving license, which is for driving light motor vehicle?
ii. Whether the claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation.
iii. What order?
19. The claimants have established that the accident had occurred on 30.12.2010 at about 7.45 p.m., when Muniraju was proceeding on the motorcycle bearing No.KA-03/EU-3290 as a pillion rider with Nagaraju- claimant in MVC No.514/2011 (MFA No.5383/2016) as the rider. When the motorcycle came near Samrat Hotel, Banaswadi Main road, Bengaluru, at that time, a Tata Tempo 407 vehicle bearing registration No.KA-53/1863 driven by its driver with a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life dashed to the motorcycle. Due to which, Muniraj- the pillion rider sustained injuries and succumbed to the same on the way to the hospital.
20. The claimant in MFA No.5283/2016 had also established that he being the rider of the motorcycle had also sustained injuries in the said accident.
21. The claimants have examined themselves as PWs.1 and 2 and got marked documents i.e., Ex.P1-copy of FIR, Ex.P2-copy of complaint, Ex.P3-inquest panchanama, Ex.P5-copy of IMV report, Ex.P6-copy of mahazar, Ex.P7-copy of charge-sheet filed against the driver of the Tata 407 vehicle, Ex.P18 and Ex.P19-medical bills and prescriptions of PW.2. These documents were not controverted by the respondents in the cross-examination. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal holding that the accident in question had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Tempo Tata 407 vehicle by its driver, does not call for interference by this Court.
22. Further, respondent No.2 who is the owner of the offending vehicle is said to have sold the vehicle to respondent No.3-Ambarish prior to the date of accident i.e., on 09.12.2009 itself and the purchasing of the vehicle and the ownership of the vehicle has been admitted by respondent No.3. It is also not in dispute that respondent No.1 had issued insurance policy in the name of respondent No.2 as the owner of the vehicle. Though the said vehicle has been sold by respondent No.2 to respondent No.3, much prior to the date of accident and the registration certificate was also transferred in the name of respondent No.3, the insurance policy issued by respondent No.1 shows that respondent No.2 was the insured in respect or for the vehicle in question. Therefore, there is a valid insurance policy in respect of the vehicle.
23. The contention of respondent No.1-insurer is that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding driving license for driving a light motor vehicle (Non Transport) vehicle but he was not holding any transport endorsement to drive a transport vehicle, which is a goods vehicle in the instant case. Thereby, respondent No.2 - the owner of the vehicle/insured had violated the conditions of the policy. Therefore, there cannot be any liability fastened on respondent No.1/insurance company to pay compensation to the claimants and to indemnify the owner/insured.
24. Per contra, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that this controversy has already been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan holding that the driving license for light motor vehicle is sufficient to drive a light motor vehicle transport vehicle and no separate transport endorsement is necessary. Hence, he prayed for fastening the liability on the insurer.
The Hon’ble Apex Court at para 46 of the judgment in the case of Mukund Dewangan was held as under:
“46. Section 10 of the Act requires a driver to hold a licence with respect to the class of vehicles and not with respect to the type of vehicles. In one class of vehicles, there may be different kinds of vehicles. If they fall in the same class of vehicles, no separate endorsement is required to drive such vehicles. As light motor vehicle includes transport vehicle also, a holder of light motor vehicle licence can drive all the vehicles of the class including transport vehicles. It was pre- amended position as well the post-amended position of Form 4 as amended on 28.3.2001. Any other interpretation would be repugnant to the definition of “light motor vehicle” in section 2(21) and the provisions of section 10(2)(d), Rule 8 of the Rules of 1989, other provisions and also the forms which are in tune with the provisions. Even otherwise the forms never intended to exclude transport vehicles from the category of ‘light motor vehicles’ and for light motor vehicle, the validity period of such licence hold good and apply for the transport vehicle of such class also and the expression in Section 10(2)(e) of the Act ‘Transport Vehicle’ would include medium goods vehicle, medium passenger motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicle, heavy passenger motor vehicle which earlier found place in section 10(2)(e) to (h) and our conclusion is fortified by the syllabus and rules which we have discussed. Thus we answer the questions which are referred to us thus:
(i) ‘Light motor vehicle’ as defined in section 2(21) of the Act would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in section 2(21) read with section 2(15) and 2(48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act No.54/1994.
(ii) A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg. would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a road roller, ‘unladen weight’ of which does not exceed 7500 kg. and holder of a driving licence to drive class of “light motor vehicle” as provided in section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg. or a motor car or tractor or road-roller, the “unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued under section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54/1994 and 28.3.2001 in the form.
(iii) The effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act No.54/1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994 while substituting clauses (e) to (h) of section 10(2) which contained “medium goods vehicle” in section 10(2)(e), medium passenger motor vehicle in section 10(2)(f), heavy goods vehicle in section 10(2)(g) and “heavy passenger motor vehicle” in section 10(2)(h) with expression ‘transport vehicle’ as substituted in section 10(2)(e) related only to the aforesaid substituted classes only. It does not exclude transport vehicle, from the purview of section 10(2)(d) and section 2(41) of the Act i.e. light motor vehicle.
(iv) The effect of amendment of Form 4 by insertion of “transport vehicle” is related only to the categories which were substituted in the year 1994 and the procedure to obtain driving licence for transport vehicle of class of “light motor vehicle” continues to be the same as it was and has not been changed and there is no requirement to obtain separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle, and if a driver is holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that effect.”
25. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan, when the driver of the offending vehicle holding the driving license for light motor vehicle which is produced and marked as per Ex.R2, the extract of the driving license of the driver of the vehicle (holding LMV) is sufficient to drive the light motor transport vehicle. Therefore, point No.1 is answered in favour of the appellants – claimants and against the insurer holding that the trial Court was not justified in fastening the liability on the owner of the offending vehicle by exonerating the insurer.
26. The next controversy is in respect of the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in the claim petitions.
27. The claimants in MVC No.513/2011 contended that the deceased-Muniraju was working as Projection Welder at Velkalyan Products as well as Gayathri Precisions companies at Bengaluru earning Rs.12,000/- + Over Time allowances. In support of their contentions, they have produced and got marked Ex.P10 and Ex.P11. Ex.P10 is salary certificate issued by Velkalyan Products and Ex.P11 is another salary certificate issued by Gayathri Precisions company and as per both the documents, the deceased was earning Rs.6,500/- each from both the companies. To prove Exs.P10 and 11, the claimants had also examined PW.3 and PW.4, the authors of the respective documents. There is no reason assigned by the Tribunal to disbelieve the evidence of PW.3, PW.4 and the salary certificates issued by them i.e., Exs.P10 and P11 produced and marked by the claimants and it has wrongly assessed the income at Rs.6,500/- per month which is not only erroneous and meager but also against the evidence on record. Therefore, we propose to consider Rs.12,000/- per month as income of the deceased as claimed by the claimants.
28. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi, 40% of the established income shall be considered towards future prospects. If Rs.12,000/- is added to Rs.4,800/- being 40% of Rs.12,000/-, it comes to Rs.16,800/-. There are five claimants in the petition therefore, 1/4th of the income shall be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. If 1/4th of 16,800/- i.e., Rs.4,200/- is deducted it comes to Rs.12,600/-. The same is annualized and multiplied by ‘15’ (appropriate multiplier), it comes to Rs.22,68,000/-. Therefore, we award Rs.22,68,000/- towards loss of dependency instead of Rs.10,64,784/- awarded by the Tribunal.
29. As per the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Magma (supra), the claimants are entitled to compensation for loss of consortium. Claimant No.1 being the wife of the deceased-Muniraju is entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium, claimant Nos.2 and 3 who are the children are entitled to Rs.30,000/- each towards loss of parental consortium, claimant Nos.4 and 5 being the aged parents are entitled to Rs.30,000/- each towards loss of filial consortium.
Further, the claimants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, another Rs.15,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses. Thus, the re-assessed compensation in MFA No.5382/2016 is as under:
Heads Compensation awarded by this Court (in Rs.) Loss of dependency 22,68,000.00 Loss of consortium (Rs.40,000/- to the wife,
30. The aforesaid compensation shall also carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till realisation. The enhanced compensation shall be apportioned in the following ratio, i.e. 40% to the wife of the deceased, 20% each to the children of the deceased and 10% each to the parents of the deceased.
31. 75% of the compensation awarded to the wife of the deceased shall be deposited in a Fixed Deposit in any Post-Office or nationalised Bank for an initial period of ten years and she shall be entitled to draw periodical interest on the said deposit. The remaining compensation shall be released to her after due identification.
The entire compensation awarded to the children of the deceased shall be deposited in a Fixed Deposit in any Post-Office or nationalised Bank till they attain the age of majority.
50% of the compensation awarded to the parents of the deceased shall be deposited in a Fixed Deposit in any Post-Office or nationalised Bank for an initial period of three years and they shall be entitled to draw periodical interest on the said deposit and the remaining compensation shall be released to them, after due identification.
32. Regarding the quantum of compensation awarded in MFA No.5383/2016, the appellant contended that he has sustained injuries in the accident and he has produced Ex.P14, the wound certificate issued by Koshys Hospital, Bengaluru. He has sustained abrasion over the right hand, both the knees and left leg. He was admitted in the hospital for four days from 30.12.2010 to 03.01.2011. He has produced the medical bills amounting to Rs.10,553.70/-, but the Tribunal has awarded global compensation of Rs.20,000/-, which is not correct and very meager. Hence, he prayed for enhancing the same.
33. On perusal of Ex.P14, the wound certificate issued by Koshys Hospital, Bengaluru shows the injuries sustained by the appellant is simple in nature and the medical bill-Ex.P18 and the prescription-Ex.P19 go to show that he had spent Rs.10,553/- towards medical expenditures and he was admitted for almost four days and treated as an in-patient from 30.12.2010 t0 03.01.2011. Therefore, we are of the view that awarding of global compensation of Rs.20,000/- is not correct and is meager. The claimant would have suffered pain and agony. Therefore, we propose to award Rs.20,000/- under the head of pain and suffering. We also propose to award Rs.10,553/- towards medical expenditures incurred by the claimant. The claimant was also admitted as an in-patient for four days. He could have spent amounts towards food, nourishment, attendant and incidental charges. Therefore, we award Rs.5,000/- towards food, nourishment and attendant charges.
34. The re-assessed compensation in MFA No.5383/2016 is as under:
Heads Compensation awarded by this Court Pain and suffering Rs.20,000.00 Medical expenses Rs.10,553.00 Incidental charges Rs.5,000.00 Total Rounded off to Rs.35,553.00 Rs.35,000.00 35. The aforesaid compensation is rounded off to Rs.35,000/- and it shall also carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till realisation. On deposit of the amount, the same shall be released to the appellant after due identification.
In the result, both these appeals are allowed-in- part in the aforesaid terms.
Respondent No.1-insurance company shall deposit the balance compensation amount with interest within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
Parties to bear their respective costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE GBB