Karnataka High Court
The Manager M/S Shriram General ... vs Smt Shobha G V on 5 December, 2013
Author: S.Abdul Nazeer
Bench: S.Abdul Nazeer
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 05th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.ABDUL NAZEER
MFA NO.9741/2012 c/w MFA NO.8577/2012 (MV)
IN MFA No.9741/2012
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER
M/S SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD., NO.5, 2ND FLOORS,
MONARCH CHAMBERS
INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE
REPRESENTED BY
M/S SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD., NO.302, 3RD FLOOR,
S & S CORNER BUILDING
OPP. BOWRING AND CURZON HOSPITAL
SHIVAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560001
REPTD BY ITS LEGAL OFFICER. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI B.C.SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADV.,)
AND:
1. SMT. SHOBHA G.V
W/O LATE VEERESH G.J.,
NOW AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
2. KUM G.V.BHOOMIKA
D/O LATE VEERESH G.J.,
AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS
3. G.V.PRATHAM
S/O LATE VEERESH G.J.,
NOW AGED ABOUT 2 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3 ARE MINOR
2
REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND
RESPONDENT NO.1
ALL ARE R/A NO.1304, 3RD MAIN ROAD
3RD STAGE, PRAKASHNAGARA
BANGALORE-21
4. JAGADEESHWARAPPA
S/O LATE SHIVARUDRAPPA
NOW AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/AT SIDDAPURA VILLAGE
BHEEMASAMUDRA
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT
5. RAVISHA
S/O LATE JAVARAIAH
MAJOR, R/O BUDANUR
CHAKODANAHALLI POST
H.D.KOTE TALUK. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI N.GOPALAKRISHNA, ADV., FOR R1-R4
R5-NOTICE D/W V/O DATED: 29.10.2013)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 28.4.2012 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1138/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDL. JUDGE, COURT
OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT-3, BANGALORE,
AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.27,59,147/- WITH
INTEREST @ 8% P.A FROM THE DATE OF THE PETITION.
IN MFA NO.8577/2012
BETWEEN:
1. SMT SHOBHA G.V.,
W/O LATE VEERESH G.J.,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
2. KUM G.V.BHOOMIKA
D/O LATE VEERESH G.J.,
AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS
3. G.V.PRATHAM
S/O LATE VEERESH G.J.,
AGED ABOUT 2 YEARS
3
4. SRI JAGADEESHWARAPPA
S/O LATE SHIVARUDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
2ND & 3RD MINOR APPELLANTS ARE
REP. BY THEIR NATURAL
GUARDIAN/MOTHER-1ST APPELLANT
HEREIN
APPELLANTS 1 TO 3 ARE RESIDING
AT NO.1304, 3RD MAIN ROAD
3RD STAGE, PRAKASHNAGAR
BANGALORE - 560021
4TH APPELLANT IS RESIDING AT
SIDDAPURA VILLAGE
BHEEMASANDRA
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI N.GOPALAKRISHNA, ADV.,)
AND:
1. SRI RAVISHA, S/O JAVARIAH
MAJOR IN AGE
BUDANUR, CHAKODANAHALLY POST
H.D.KOTE.
2. SREE RAM GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMTIED
NO.5, MONARCH CHAMBERS
3RD FLOOR, INFANTRY ROAD
BANGALORE - 560001
REP: BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.C.SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADV., FOR R2
R1-NOTICE D/W V/O DATED 29.10.2013)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:28.4.2012 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1138/2011 ON THE FILE OF 7TH ADDITIONAL JUDGE,
MEMBER, MACT-3, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
4
THESE MFA'S COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
These two appeals are directed against the judgment and award in MVC No.1138/2011 dated 28.04.2012 on the file of the Motor Accident claims Tribunal, Bangalore, Court of Small Causes.
2. The insurer of the offending vehicle has filed MFA No.9741/12 challenging the aforesaid judgment and award on the ground that the award of compensation is excessive.
3. The claimants have filed other connected appeal MFA No.8577/12 contending that the award of compensation is inadequate.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5
5. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 in MFA No.9741/12 and appellants in MFA No.8577/12 are the wife, children and father of one Veeresh.G.J. Veeresh.G.J died in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 20.12.2012. The claimants filed MVC No.1138/11 seeking compensation on account of the death of Veeresh.G.J. The 1st respondent insurance company has entered appearance and has opposed the averments made in the claim petition.
6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the Tribunal has framed the following issues;
"1. Do the petitioners prove that G.J.Veeresh died in an accident arising out of rashness/negligence of the driver of the Tempo Travel bearing registration No.KA-41- 2488 as alleged in the petition?
2. Whether the petitioners prove that they are LRs of the deceased G.J.Veeresh?
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?6
4. What Order or Award?"
7. The wife of the deceased was examined as PW1. No evidence was let in on behalf of the insurer of the vehicle. On appreciation of the materials on record the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.27,59,147/-.
8. Sri B.C.Shivannegowda, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurer of the offending vehicle submits that the Tribunal has illegally taken the income of the deceased at Rs.16,000/- per month for the purpose of computation of loss of dependency on the basis of the salary certificate issued by the so called employer of the deceased, namely, Bharath Insecticides Ltd. The employer was not examined in order to establish the payment of salary and no documents have been produced to show that the deceased was receiving the salary at the above rate. The Tribunal has not deducted the professional tax and income tax of the 7 deceased while taking 16,000/- per month as salary of the deceased. It is further contended that the medical expenses awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant and it is very likely that the claimants have received the same from some other health insurance agency.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants submits that the compensation awarded to the claimants is on the lower side. It is argued that the deceased was permanently employed. He had a bright future. The claimants have produced bank statement of the deceased in order to establish the receipt of the salary. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have atleast added 30% of the salary towards loss of future prospects. It is further contended that the Tribunal has not awarded appropriate compensation towards loss of consortium and loss of love and affection.
10. There is no dispute as to the occurrence of the accident and the liability of the respondent- 8 Insurance Company to pay compensation. Having regard to the contentions urged, the only question that arises for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?
11. PW1 in her evidence has stated that her husband was employed with Bharath Insecticides Ltd. He was drawing a salary of Rs.21,000/-. The certificates issued by the employer are marked at Exs.P6, P7, P8, P9, P10 and P11. The bank statement produced by the learned counsel for the claimants would show that the deceased was receiving salary in a sum of Rs.15,513/- from the month of February, 2010 till the month of November, 2010. It is clear that the salary credited to the account of the deceased was after deduction of tax component. Therefore, though the employer was not examined, the document marked in the evidence coupled with bank statement clearly establishes that the claimant was receiving salary consistently. The salary certificate of the deceased also indicates that a 9 sum of Rs.800/- per month was initially given towards transport allowance. Subsequently transport allowance was increased to Rs.1,000/- per month. This amount is also part of the amount credited to the bank account of the deceased along with the salary. Therefore, Rs.1,000/- has to be deducted from Rs.15,513/-. Thus, actual salary of the claimant comes to Rs.14,513/-.
12. The claimant was aged 35 years at the time of accident. It is clear from the materials on record that he had bright prospects. Therefore, atleast 30% of the salary should have been added towards loss of future prospectus as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the claimants. Therefore, a sum of Rs.4,354/- has to be added to the salary of the deceased, which comes to Rs.18,867/-. 1/4th of the income has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased having regard to the number of dependants left behind by him. By taking income of the deceased Rs.18,867/- and after deducting 1/4th of the income towards his personal 10 expenses and with application of multiplier 16, the compensation payable towards loss of dependency comes to Rs.27,16,800/-.
13. The 1st claimant wife of the deceased is entitled for a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of consortium, other claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of love and affection. A sum Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards transportation and funeral expenses. The medical expenses awarded by the tribunal in a sum of Rs.3,85,147/- is just and reasonable.
14. Thus, the claimants are entitled for compensation as under:
Sl.No. Particulars Amount
(in rupees)
1 Towards loss of dependency 27,16,800.00
2 Towards loss of consortium 50,000.00
3 Towards loss of love and affection 50,000.00
4 Towards loss of transportation, 10,000.00
funeral expenses
5 Towards medical expenses 3,85,147.00
TOTAL 32,11,947.00
11
15. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of
Rs.27,59,147/-, which has to be deducted from the aforesaid amount and the balance of compensation payable to the claimants is Rs.4,52,800/-. The said sum of Rs.4,52,800/- shall carry interest at 6% per annum.
16. In the result, I pass the following;
ORDER
(i) The appeal filed by the insurer of the offending vehicle in MFA No.9741/12 is dismissed. The amount in deposit shall be transferred to the Tribunal forthwith.
(ii) The appeal filed by the claimants in MFA No.8577/2012 is allowed in part. The respondent - Insurance company is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.4,52,800/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of 12 the application till the date of deposit within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The 1st appellant is permitted to withdraw the amount on its deposit. No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE KLY/