Karnataka High Court
Laxmi vs National Insurance Co Ltd on 29 July, 2013
Bench: N.K.Patil, B.Manohar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY 2013
:PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. PATIL
:AND:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MANOHAR
M.F.A. NO.7882/2009 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. LAXMI
W/O LATE RAGHURAM
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
2. JNANESH
S/O LATE RAGHURAM
AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS,
3. JNANENDRA
S/O LATE RAGHURAM
AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS,
4.ADITYA
S/O LATE RAGHURAM
AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS,
2 TO 4 ARE MINORS REP. BY THEIR
MOTHER LAXMI AS NATURAL
GUARDIAN, R/AT BIJADI VILLAGE,
KOTESWARA POST,
UDUPI DISTRICT. ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI ADINARAYAN FOR A N N ASSOCIATES.)
2
AND:
1. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD
NO.10, FLAT NO. 101-106, NO.1,
BMC HOUSE, CONNAUGHT PLACE,
NEW DELHI. (POLICY NO. 3257186)
2. HAMUNTHAIAH R
S/O RAMAIAH
DASANAPURA HOBLI,
DASANAPURA POST,
BANGALORE NORTH
BANGALORE. ... ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI A M VENKATESH, ADV. FOR R1
NOTICE TO R2 DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED
17.11.2009)
****
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:
24.7.2009 PASSED IN MVC NO. 8556/2008 ON THE
FILE OF THE VI ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES, MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING
THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
N.K. PATIL, J. DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is by the claimants directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 24.07.2009 passed in MVC No.8556/2008 on the file of the VI Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and MACT, Bangalore 3 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal' for short) for enhancement of compensation.
2. By its judgment and award, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,28,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its deposit as against the claim made by the appellants on account of death of Raghuram in the road traffic accident.
3. The brief facts of the case are: the appellant No.1 is the wife and appellant Nos.2 to 4 are the children of the deceased and that on 22.6.2008 at about 9.00 p.m. while the deceased was repairing his scooter on the left side of Magadi - Bangalore main road near Kadabagere cross due to mechanical defect, at that time, a Maruthi Alto car bearing Registration No.KA- 52/M-143 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased. And thereby, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries while taking treatment at D.G. Hospital, Padmanabhanagara, Bangalore. Thereafter, the claimants filed a claim petition before the Tribunal 4 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, on account of the untimely death of the deceased in the road traffic accident. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after hearing both sides and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, has allowed the claim petition in part and awarded a sum of Rs.6,28,000/- as compensation with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its deposit. Being dis-satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants are before this court seeking enhancement of compensation.
4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent - Insurance Company.
5. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants is that the deceased was a Proprietor of New Sriram Refreshment and earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. The Tribunal has erred 5 in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month and after deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased has awarded compensation which is on the lower side and requires enhancement after re-assessment of the income of the deceased. Further, he submits that the deceased was aged about 40 years at the time of accident, and the proper multiplier of '15' has to be applied as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case. Therefore, he submits that the judgment and award of the Tribunal is liable to be modified.
6. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the materials available on record, including the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the only point that arises for our consideration is:
"Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?"
6
7. It is not in dispute that the deceased died in the road traffic accident. Further, it is not in dispute that the appellants are none other than the wife and children of the deceased. On account of the untimely death of the deceased, the wife lost her husband at her young age and the children lost their father's love and affection, inspiration, guidance and security. The deceased was aged about 40 years at the time of accident, as per Post Mortem report. It is submitted that the deceased was hale and healthy and was a Proprietor of New Sriram Refreshment and earning Rs.30,000/- per month.
8. As against this, Sri A.M.Venkatesh, learned counsel for the Insurance Company at the out set submitted that the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation after due consideration of oral and documentary evidence and material available on record as the claimants have not produced Licence to establish that the deceased was running the hotel 7 or produced any document to establish the said income. Therefore, the impugned judgment and award does not call for interference.
9. The monthly income of Rs.5,000/- assessed by the Tribunal is just and proper and we accept the same. In the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case, the appropriate multiplier applicable is '15' instead of '14' adopted by the Tribunal. Therefore, the appellants are entitled for Rs.6,75,000/- (Less 1/4th of Rs.5,000 = Rs.3,750/- x 12 x 15) towards loss of dependency. Regarding conventional heads, we deem it fit to award a sum of Rs.45,000/- as against Rs.40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards conventional heads such as loss of consortium, loss to estate, loss of love and affection and transportation and funeral expenses. In all, the appellants are entitled to the compensation of Rs.7,20,000/- as against Rs.6,28,000/-. There will be an excess of Rs.92,000/-.
8Accordingly, we pass the following order:
(1) The appeal filed by the claimants is allowed in part.
(2) The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal dated 24.07.2009 in MVC No. 8556/2008 on the file of the VI Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and MACT, Bangalore is hereby modified enhancing compensation by another sum of Rs.92,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
(3) The first respondent - Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.92,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realisation, within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
(4) Immediately on such deposit by the Insurer, out of the enhanced compensation, a sum of Rs.50,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank, in the name of the 1st appellant for a period of ten years and renewable 9 for another five years, with liberty to her to withdraw periodical interest accrued on it.
(5) The remaining amount of Rs.42,000/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of appellant No.1, immediately on deposit by the Insurer.
Draw the award, accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE PL