IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR M.F.A.NO.75 OF 2017 (MV) BETWEEN THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE.
NOW THROUGH CHIEF LAW OFFICER, KSRTC, BANGALORE.
(BY SRI.K.NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SRI.BHADRAIAH, S/O LATE ERABHADRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, …APPELLANT 2. SMT.GOWRAMMA, W/O SRI.BHADRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT CHIKKASULIKERE, KASABA HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT.
…RESPONDENTS (R1 AND R2 SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:18.10.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.610/2014, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, & JMFC, KUNIGAL, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.10,02,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the appellant-KSRTC is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 18.10.2016 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT-XV, Kunigal in MVC No.610/2014 has awarded a compensation of Rs.10,02,000/- in favour of the respondent-claimant on account of death of the petitioner’s son Manjunath who died in the fatal road accident that occurred on 27.12.2013.
2. The respondent has remained unrepresented for the present appeal, I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
3. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the Tribunal committed an error in awarding the aforesaid compensation in favour of the respondent and that the same is excessive and not in consonance with the material on record. It is also contended that on perusal of the material on record indicates that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is highly excessive and the same has to be reduced by this Court.
4. I have carefully considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant-KSRTC and perused the material on record in particular, the reasoning of the Tribunal and finding recorded by it at para Nos. 9 to 15 which reads as follows:
“9. Issue No.2 and 3: The petitioners have claimed that deceased Manjunath was aged about 22 years and he was working as daily wage D group employee in SBI Kunigal and he was paid Rs.300/- per day as daily wages. Hence they claimed that his monthly income as on the date of his death was Rs.9,000/- per month. Because of his untimely death, they have been put to much hardship. Hence, they sought to award compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- with interest at 12% per annum.
10. On the other hand the respondent has submitted that there is no proof as to the income of deceased and also the age as shown in the petition i.e., 22 years. Hence it has sought to reject the petition.
11. So far the age of deceased Manjunath is concerned the petitioners have produced the certified copy of 10th Marks Card of said Manjunath, wherein the date of birth of Manjunath is mentioned as 28.06.1991. The accident has occurred on 27.12.013. As such, as per Ex.P.12, which is an undisputed document, the age of deceased was 22 years when he died.
12. With regard to income, though the petitioners have not produced any documents to show that deceased Manjunath was working as daily wages D group employee in SBI, Kunigal, however considering the age and also the date of accident, I am of the opinion that a notional income of Rs.200/- per day would be a reasonable amount. Hence, I am of the opinion that as on the date of death of deceased Manjunath, he was earning Rs.6,000/- per month.
13. However, considering the age of deceased future prospects have to be taken into consideration. As per the principles laid down in the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court between Munnalal Jain and another Vs Vipul Kumar Sharma and others reported in CIVIL APPEAL NO.4997/2015 arising from (SLP) Civil No.8362/2013, 50% of the total income has to be added which comes to Rs.6000+3000=9000/-. Since the deceased was a bachelor, as per decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in another decision between Sarala Varma and others Vs Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in 2009 (SAR) 592. 50% income has to be deducted towards personal expenses i.e., Rs.9000-4500 =4500/-. As such, Rs.4500/- is the actual income which has to be taken into consideration for calculation of compensation under the head loss of dependency. Further, as per the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in above said Sarala Varma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, the suitable multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased i.e., 21-25 years, is 18. Hence, the petitioners are entitled for compensation under the head ‘Loss of Dependency’ @ Rs.4500x12x18=9,72,000=00 under the head ‘loss of dependency’.
14. Further, the petitioners have claimed that they have incurred expenses of Rs.44,000/- towards funeral expenses. Hence, they claimed to award the said amount also. But, the respondent has produced the receipt which was signed by the petitioners, at the time of the amount paid by the respondent for funeral expenses. A perusal of Ex.R1, since it is marked with consent, it appears that the petitioners have received Rs.35,000/- through a cheque bearing No.390244 dated 23.05.2014 from Divisional Controller Tumakuru, i.e. from the necessary expenses. In view of this, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are not entitled for any compensation under the head funeral expenses.
15. However, since the petitioners No.1 and 2 being the parents of deceased Manjunath, have lost their loving and affectionate son at his very young age, as such, they have to be compensated with Rs.15,000/- each towards love and affection. Accordingly, the petitioners are entitled for compensation as under:
1 Towards dependency Rs. 9,72,000/-
2 Towards Love and affection Rs.15,000/- each Rs. 30,000/-
Total Rs.10,02,00/-
5. As could be seen above, the Tribunal has carefully considered the material on record including oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties and come to the conclusion that the compensation awarded in favour of respondents is just, fair and proper. Having regard to the material on record, the Tribunal was fully justified in awarding the aforesaid compensation in favour of the respondent.
6. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
The amount in deposit may be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement.
Sd/- JUDGE SSD