IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8195 OF 2015 [MV] C/W.
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8194 OF 2015 [MV] BETWEEN 1. SMT. VASANTHAMMA, W/O. T.K.CHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 2. SRI. T.K.CHANDRAPPA, S/O. LATE KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 3. KUM. K.C.SHASHIKALA, D/O. T.K. CHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT CHINTHAMAKALAPALLI VILLAGE & POST, V.KOTA MANDALAM, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-522 601. ... APPELLANTS [COMMON IN BOTH THE APPEALS] [BY SRI.GOPAL KRISHNA N., ADVOCATE] AND 1. SRI. BOGGARAM DIVAKAR MURALIKRISHNA, S/O. ATCHYUTA SARMA, MAJOR IN AGE, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.204, ESHWARI TOWERS, PRAKASH NAGAR, NARASARAOPET, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-522 601.
2. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, NEAR DOOM LIGHT CIRCLE, KOLAR-563 101.
REP. BY ITS MANAGER. ... RESPONDENTS [COMMON IN BOTH THE APPEALS] [BY SRI. S.SRISHAILA, ADVOCATE FOR R2.
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 25.01.2018] * * * THESE MFAs ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.02.2015 PASSED IN MVC NOS.445/2013 AND 444/2013 RESPECTIVELY ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT., KOLAR, C/C. I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT., KOLAR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THESE MFAs COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Though these appeals are listed for admission, the same are taken up for final disposal at the consent of the learned counsel appearing on both side.
2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company.
3. MFA No.8195/2015 arises out of MVC No.445/2013 and MFA No.8194/2015 arises out of MVC No.444/2013. Both the appeals are filed by the claimants, seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Kolar.
4. The brief facts of the case are that;
On 01.09.2013, the deceased viz., Sri. K.C.Dwarakish and K.C.Devakrishna were going towards their village Chinthamakalapalle from Bengaluru in a TATA Ace goods Tempo bearing reg. No.AP-03/TA-7058 which was driven by their brother Pushparaju. At around 10.30 p.m. near Kondarajanahalli Darga on Bengaluru-Chennai NH-75 Road, they parked the said tempo by the side of the road and while trying to cross the highway to go to a hotel and when they reached northern side of the said highway and standing on the open median to cross the southern side of the road, at that time, a Maruti Ritz car bearing reg. No.AP-07/BF-5758 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came from Chennai side and dashed against them. Due to the said impact, all of them were knocked down and sustained grievous injuries. K.C.Dwarakish and K.C.Devakrishna succumbed to the injuries on the spot.
The claimants are the parents and Sister of the deceased. Respective claim petitions were filed before the Tribunal, seeking compensation. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.8,85,000/- each in MVC No.444/2013 and 445/2013 with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the Tribunal has not considered the future prospects while awarding compensation under the head ‘loss of dependency’. He would submit that the deceased viz., K.C.Dwarakish in MVC No.444/2013 was aged about 24 years and the deceased viz., K.C.Devakrishna in MVC No.445/2013 was aged 21 years at the time of the accident. He submits that both the deceased were bachelors and they were working as brick cutters. Hence, he submits that the Tribunal ought to have awarded a higher compensation towards loss of dependency. It is further submitted that the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and accordingly the learned counsel seeks to enhance the compensation.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company justifies the Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal contending that the compensation awarded is just and reasonable and no interference is called for. Accordingly, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.
6. The accident in question, involving Maruti Ritz Car bearing reg. No.AP-07/BF-5758 and the negligence on the part of the driver of the said car are not in dispute. The Tribunal after considering the evidence and material on record has taken the notional income of both the deceased at Rs.7,500/- p.m. In view of the evidence on record & the facts and circumstances of the case, the said income assessed by the Tribunal is just and proper. However, the Tribunal has not added any amount to the income towards future prospects. Both the deceased were aged below 25 years at the time of the accident and therefore, appropriate multiplier applicable to the age group between 15-25 is ‘18’. It is just and proper to add 40% to the income towards future prospects and after deducting 50% towards personal expenses, the appellants would be entitle for a total compensation of Rs.11,34,000/- [Rs.7,500 + 3,000 = Rs.10,500 – 5,250 = Rs.5,250 x 12 x 18] towards loss of dependency as against Rs.8,10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal in both the cases.
7. The Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.75,000/- under other heads which are just and reasonable and no interference is called for. Therefore, the appellants in each appeal are entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.3,24,000/-. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER MFA No.8194/2015 and MFA No.8195/2015 are allowed in part. The Judgment and Award passed in MVC Nos.444/2013 and 445/2013 dated 12.02.2015 passed by the II Additional District Judge and Member, MACT., Kolar C/c. I Additional District Judge and Member, MACT., Kolar are hereby modified.
The appellants in MFA No.8194/2015 and MFA No.8195/2015 are entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.3,24,000/- each with interest at 6% p.a. in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
Respondent No.2/Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.
Sd/- JUDGE.
Ksm*