IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM MFA NO.10865/2013 [MV-D] C/w.
MFA NO.1231/2014 [MV-D] M.F.A.NO.10865/2013 BETWEEN 1. VENKATADRI R S/O LATE G. RAMAIAH AGED 51 YEARS R/O NO.10, 4TH CROSS MUNESHWARA LAYOUT KRISHNAIAHNA PALYA INDIRANAGAR POST BANGALORE-560 038.
2. SMT.HEMAVATHI W/O VENKATADRI R AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O - DO -
ADDRESS IN ID VENKATADRI R.
S/O LATE G. RAMAIAH D.NO.1-174, DALVAI PALLI MADIREDDY PALLI POST YADAMARI MANDAL CHITTOR DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH-561 100 (BY SRI VIJAY KUMAR T., ADVOCATE) AND 1. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. BY ITS MANAGER NO.28, CENTENARY BUILDING EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR, NEAR CITI BANK, M.G.ROAD BANGALORE-1.
2. G.DORASWAMY S/O MUNIRATHNAM AGED MAJOR R/O DALAVAYI PALLI VILLAGE MADIREDDI PALLI POST YADAMARI MANDAL CHITTOR (M)-517 001 ANDHRA PRADESH STATE.
(BY SRI H.S.LINGARAJ, ADV., FOR R1 …APPELLANTS …RESPONDENTS VIDE ORDER DATED 04.09.2015 NOTICE TO R2 DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.09.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.1329/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
M.F.A. NO.1231/2014 BETWEEN RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED REGIONAL OFFICE AT NO.28, 5TH FLOOR, EAST WING, CENTENARY BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001 BY ITS MANAGER(LEGAL) ...APPELLANT (BY SRI LINGARAJ H S, ADVOCATE) AND 1. VENKATADRI R NOW AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O LATE G.RAMAIAH 2. SMT. HEMAVATHI NOW AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, W/O VENKATADRI.R BOTH ARE R/A NO.10, 4TH CROSS, MUNESHWARA LAYOUT, KRISHNAIAHNA PALYA, INDIRANAGAR POST, BANGALORE-560038 ADDRESS IN I.D VENKATADRI.R S/O LATE G.RAMAIAH, DOOR NO.1-174, DALVAI PALLI, MADIREDDY PALLI POST, YADEMARI MANDAL, CHITTOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 3. G.DORASWAMY MAJOR, S/O MUNIRATHNAM, R/O DALAWAYI PALLI VILLAGE, MADIREDDI PALLI POST, YADAMARI MANDAL, CHITTOR DISTRICT(M)-517 001, ANDHRA PRADESH …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIJAY KUMAR.T, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2 NOTICE TO R3 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.09.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.1329/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.23,20,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALISATION.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, SATYANARAYANA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The appeal in MFA No.10865/2013 is by the claimants and MFA No.1231/2014 is by the Insurer challenging the Judgment and Award dated 30.09.2013 in MVC No.1329/2012 on the file of the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, XX Additional Small Causes Judge, Bengaluru [‘Tribunal’, for short].
2. The brief facts leading to these appeals are as under:
The son of the claimants 1 and 2 before the Tribunal, namely, Kiran Yadav V., a youngster aged about 27 years, Software Engineer, gainfully employed in a Multi National Company, met with an accident on 25.12.2011 at about 1.45 pm while traveling as inmate in a car bearing registration No.AP-03-TV-0420. Admittedly, the said accident is not in dispute, so also the presence of the victim Kiran Yadav V., as a co- passenger in the said car and the same being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver and hitting the divider of the road resulting in his death.
3. It is in this background, claim petition was filed by his parents, seeking compensation where they would contend that he was working as an Officer- International Outsourcing at M/s. Trans Genez Solutions and Engineering Private Limited, Bengaluru, and was earning monthly salary of around Rs.18,000/- and that the family of the claimants was entirely depending on him as he being the only son and breadwinner of the family and on his death, the family has lost sole source of survival.
4. In the proceedings before the Tribunal, the documents which are produced in support of evidence of the first claimant as PW.1 would clearly support the averments in the claim petition and the same is also supported by documents marked as Exhibits.P1 to P20. The salary certificate is at Exhibit.P9 and salary slips for the months of August to October 2011 are marked as Exhibit.P12, where last drawn salary is shown as Rs.18,505/- after giving deduction to the professional tax and other taxes which are required to be deducted. However, while calculating the compensation payable to the claimants, the Tribunal has not taken said amount as basis for calculating the compensation amount and it has taken the same at a lower rate and accordingly calculated the compensation payable to him in a sum of Rs.23,20,000/-. Being aggrieved of the same, the claimants have come up in appeal in MFA No.10865/2013 seeking enhancement of compensation.
5. In the meanwhile, contesting respondent has come up in appeal in MFA No.1239/2014 contending that the compensation awarded is on the higher side and the salary taken into consideration is also not supported by evidence to indicate as to his last drawn salary and that as on the date of accident he had resigned from his job. However, there is no evidence to support such defence raised by the Insurance Company. In that view of the matter, the salary being proved by examining PW.2, this Court is of the opinion that there is, in fact, error on the part of the Tribunal in assessing the compensation payable to the claimants.
Accordingly, the same is required to be considered in this appeal.
6. Coming to the compensation which is required to be considered to be paid to the claimants for death of their son Kiran Yadav V. Based on Exhibit.P12 the monthly income of the deceased as on the date of death was Rs.18,505/- after deduction of tax and the same works out to Rs.2,22,060/- per annum. To this, another 40% is required to be added towards future prospects, which takes his income to Rs.3,10,884/-. Admittedly, the deceased was a Bachelor, as such 50% of his income is to be considered towards his personal expenses. If that is taken into consideration, the amount which is available for the benefit of the claimants would be Rs.1,55,442/-. If the same is multiplied applying the relevant multiplier of ‘17’, the claimants would be entitled to compensation towards loss of dependency in a sum of Rs.26,42,514/- for which another sum of Rs.30,000/- is required to be awarded towards compensation under conventional heads which works out to Rs.26,72,514/-, which is rounded of to Rs.26,73,000/-.
7. Accordingly, on reassessment of compensation as stated supra, the claimants are entitled to receive an amount of Rs.26,73,000/- as compensation with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization.
8. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds that the appeal which is filed by the claimants in MFA No.10865/2013 is allowed in part. Consequently, appeal which is filed by the Insurer in MFA No.1231/2014 is dismissed as the same does not merit consideration.
9. Since the appeal filed by the Insurer is dismissed, the amount in deposit is ordered to be transferred to the Tribunal for disbursement to the claimants.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE AN/-