IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.5391 of 2014(MV) BETWEEN MRS. VANI MURTHY, W/O NARASIMHA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/A No.619, KARIGINILAYA, 8TH CROSS, 3RD BLOCK, K.R.S. GOWDA EXTENSION, HMT LAYOUT, NAGASANDRA POST, BANGALORE - 560 073.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI M.R. KUMARASWAMY, AND SMT. H.M. BHANU, ADVOCATES) AND 1. Mr. BYRAPPA D., S/O DASAPPA, R/AT, C/O SHREE MOOKAMBIKA, TRANSPORT, SHETTY HALLI, JALAHALLI WEST, BANGALORE - 560 015.
2. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE, INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, No.152, RICHMOND ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 035.
(BY SRI H.S. LINGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R-2.
... RESPONDENTS R1- NOTICE DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 07.04.2016) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.03.2013 PASSED IN MVC No.2281/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, PRINCIPAL MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, ARAVIND KUMAR, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This is claimant’s appeal for enhancement of compensation not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by Prl.MACT, Bengaluru, in MVC No.2281/2011, on 27.03.2013.
2. On account of death of the claimant’s husband in a road traffic accident that occurred on 04.02.2011, claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act came to be filed by the claimant seeking compensation of Rs.20.00 lakh. Respondent No.2-Insurance company appeared and contested the matter by filing detailed statement of objections and after considering the pleadings and both oral and documentary evidence tendered by the parties, Tribunal has allowed the claim petition in-part and has awarded a total compensation of R.1,84,960/- under following heads;
Loss of dependency Rs. 1,59,960/-
Loss of Estate Rs. 10,000/- Transportation of dead body Rs. 10,000/- Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/-
Total Rs.1,84,960/-
3. Seeking enhancement of compensation, appellant is before this Court.
4. Sri H.S. Lingaraju, learned advocate appearing for Insurer has vehemently contended that compensation awarded by Tribunal is just and reasonable and it does not all for any enhancement.
5. We have heard arguments of Smt. H.M. Bhanu, learned advocate appearing on behalf of Sri M.R.Kumaraswamy, learned advocate for appellant and Sri H.S.lingaraju, learned advocate appearing for respondent No.2. Notice to respondent No.1 has been dispensed with vide court order dated 07.04.2016.
6. The only point that arises for our consideration in this appeal is as to whether the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation? and if so, to what extent ?
7. The deceased was aged about 70 years as on the date of accident. It was contended by the claimant namely, wife of deceased, that deceased was running a consultancy business under the name and style of ‘Vani Enterprises’ at Gokul Extension, Bengaluru and earning Rs.40,000/- p.m. PW.2, who has entered witness box is none other than son of deceased, is carrying on said business of consultancy as Grans Infotech and he has deposed that his father was working as a consultant in the said firm. In order to establish payment of consultancy charges to the deceased, two documents came to be produced i.e. Form No.16A issued by a “payer” to “payee” for having deducted Income tax at source for the Assessment Year 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 as per Exs.P.16 and P.17. Records on hand would also disclose that deceased was keeping good health and he was a qualified mechanical engineer and had retired from Hindustan Machine Tools. This material on record would support the claimant’s contention with regard to deceased being earning member as also discharging of his duties as a consultant in said firm. Form-16A, which has been produced has been brushed aside by Tribunal without arguing any reason whatsoever. Hence, we are of the view that same requires to be considered and when said date i.e., P.16 and P.17 are perused with other documents available on record, it clearly shows salary of the deceased as per Ex.P.12 and Ex.P.13 as well as Income Tax Returns filed for the year 2011-2012-Ex.P.14. These documents clearly establishes that deceased was earning around Rs.12,500/- per month.
8. Wife being the sole claimant, deduction of 50% of monthly income towards expenses will have to be made and thus, ‘loss of dependency’ to the claimant would be Rs.6,250/- per month. On this basis, the compensation, if computed and awarded, it would be just and reasonable compensation. However, taking into consideration the age of deceased was 70 years and wife is the sole claimant, we propose to award a global compensation.
9. If the income is construed at Rs.6,250/- and compensation is to be determined towards ‘loss of dependency’, it would be in the vicinity of Rs.3,75,000/- and compensation under conventional heads to which claimant would be entitled to would be Rs.70,000/- and in all the claimant would be entitled to Rs.4,45,000/- plus interest. Tribunal has already awarded a sum of Rs.1,84,960/- and thereby, if the said amount is deducted, it would be Rs.3,60,000/- plus interest. However, as this Court is not proceeding to examine the correctness or otherwise of Form 16A, which has been produced by the claimant, we propose to award a global compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- and accordingly, it is hereby awarded. Hence, we proceed to pass the following;
ORDER (i) Appeal is allowed in-part.
(ii) Judgment and award dated 27.03.2013 passed in MVC No.2281/2011 by Principal MACT, Bengaluru, is hereby modified and additional global compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- is awarded, which shall be deposited by 2nd respondent Insurer within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
(iii) On such deposit being made by the Insurer, entire amount shall be released in favour of the claimant, in the peculiar facts of the case namely, as claimant is aged about 65 years.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE mv