IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR M.F.A.NO.1255 OF 2017 (MV) BETWEEN:
1. SMT.VIJAYA W/O LATE ACHUTHA ACHARYA AGED 30 YEARS.
2. MASTER ANVITH S/O LATE ACHUTHA ACHARYA AGED 2 YEARS, MINOR.
3. SMT. SHARADA ACHARTHI W/O LATE DHARMANNA ACHARYA AGED 58 YEARS.
APPELLANT NO.2 IS A MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER THE APPELLANT NO.1 HEREIN.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT GAYATHRI NIVAS, KAJE HOUSE, SHIRLALU POST AND VILLAGE BELTHANGADY TALUK PRESENTLY RESIDING AT SATHYA NIVAS, KADRI KAMBLA MANGALURU.
(BY SRI.GURUPRASAD B.R., ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SANDHYA RAO.V., ADVOCATE) …APPELLANTS AND 1. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., LOCAL ADDRESS:
DIVISIONAL OFFICE 4TH FLOOR, FORTUNE BUILDING OPP: ATHENE HOSPITAL, FALNIR MANGALURU – 575 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
2. MR.ASHOK S/O. ANNASA NAGARI ADULT 9/2/177, W.NO.9 BLOCK NO.2, BESIDE TIK OTIKAR PETROL BUNK OPP: BUS STAND, KOPPAL TALUK.
(BY SRI. P.S. JAGADISH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. P.B.RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 …RESPONDENTS SRI. H.S. SHESHADRI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 19.07.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO. 964/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT-IV, D.K., MANGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Though the matter is posted for admission, with the consent of learned counsels on both sides, the matter is taken up for final hearing.
2. This appeal is preferred by the claimants against the impugned judgment and award dated 19.07.2016 passed by the III Additional District Judge and MACT-IV, D.K, Mangaluru in MVC No.964/2015, awarding a compensation in a sum of Rs.9,35,000/- together with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization.
3. The claimants are the wife, minor son and mother of the deceased Achutha Acharya, who died in the fatal road accident that occurred on 17.07.2015. Both counsels submit that the occurrence of the accident as well as the coverage of the vehicle by the Respondent No.2-Insurance Company is not in dispute. Accordingly, this appeal is restricted to quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the appellants. The Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- p.m., and has consequently assessed loss of dependency. In view of the fact that the deceased had left behind three dependents, 1/3rd of his income was deducted for the purpose of computing loss of dependency and loss of dependency was quantified at Rs.8,39,999/-. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral, obsequies and other expenses and a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of estate. In all, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.9,35,000/- together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., in favour of the claimants.
4. In the present appeal filed by the claimants- appellants, the learned counsel appearing on their behalf contended that the Tribunal committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the notional income of the deceased should be taken at Rs.7,000/- p.m., instead of Rs.9,000/- p.m., as per the guidelines issued by the Lok Adalath. He submitted that the Tribunal also committed an error in failing to add 40% towards loss of future prospects as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., vs. PRANAY SETHI (AIR 2017 SC 5157). The learned counsel would fairly submit that the compensation awarded under other heads are just and proper and that the same do not require any enhancement.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.1 supported the impugned order.
6. It is not in dispute that as per the guidelines given by the Lok Adalath, in respect the accident that occurred during the year 2014-15, the notional monthly income to be taken is Rs.8,500/- to Rs.9,000/-. Applying the said guidelines to the facts of the instant case, it is clear that the Tribunal committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the notional income of the deceased was Rs.7,000/- for the purpose of assessing loss of dependency. Accordingly, I am of the view that keeping in mind the guidelines issued by the Lok Adalath in respect of accidents that occurred during the years 2014-15 and that the accident occurred on 17.07.2015 the notional income of the deceased should be taken as Rs.9,000/- p.m., for the purpose of computing loss of dependency.
7. The Tribunal also committed an error in failing to consider and appreciate the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi’s case supra wherein it was held that 40% of the income ought to be added to the aforesaid notional income towards the head of loss of future prospects. As stated earlier, the notional income of the deceased is to be taken at Rs.9,000/- p.m., and 40% of the same would come to Rs.3,600/-. Thus the income of the deceased for the purpose of loss of dependency is to be taken as Rs.12,600/- p.m.
8. It is not in dispute that the deceased left behind three dependents who were the claimants before the Tribunal. Thus, 1/3rd of the income has to be deducted towards personal expenses. It is not in dispute that the deceased was aged about 39 years at the time of his death and the proper multiplier would be 15 as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER reported in 2009(6) SCC Page 121. In the aforesaid circumstances, the compensation under the head loss of dependency comes to Rs.15,12,000/- (Rs.12,600/- x 2/3 x 12 x 15).
9. As stated above, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.8,39,999/- towards loss of dependency. In view of the findings recorded above that the appellant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.15,12,000/- under the head loss of dependency, the appellant would be entitled to additional compensation of Rs.6,72,001/-, rounded off to Rs.6,72,000/- (Rs.15,12,000/- - Rs.8,39,999/-).
10. In so far as the compensation awarded under other heads is concerned, the same are just and proper and do not require interference by this Court.
11. Accordingly, I pass the following order:
The appeal is partly allowed and the impugned judgment and award dated 10.07.2016 passed by the III Addl. District Judge and M.A.C.T-IV, D.K, Mangaluru in MVC No.964/2015 is modified awarding a sum of Rs.6,72,000/- in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation of Rs.6,72,000/- shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition from the date of petition till realization.
In so far as apportionment is concerned, directions issued by the Tribunal in the impugned order are to be followed. No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE bnv*