Karnataka High Court
Smt Veenakshi W/O Late Manjegowda vs The Manager United India Insurance Co ... on 19 October, 2012
Author: N.K.Patil
Bench: N.K. Patil
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2012,
: BEFORE :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. PATIL
M.F.A.NO. 926 OF 2009 (MV)
Between:
1. Smt. Veenakshi,
W/o. Late Manjegowda,
Aged about 35 years.
2. Sujatha,
D/o. Late Manjegowda,
Aged about 18 years.
3. Rani,
D/o. Late Manjegowda,
Aged about 14 years.
4. Chethana,
S/o. Late Manjegowda,
Aged about 12 years.
3 & 4 are Minors,
Rep. by minor guardian-
Mother I Appellant.
All are R/o. Bustenahalli,
Boovanahalli Post,
Kasaba Hobli,
Hassan Taluk & District.
... Appellants
(By Smt. Kavitha.H.C, Advocate)
2
And:
1. The Manager,
United India Insurance Co., Ltd.,
Branch Office,
Srinivasa Complex,
Ananthashayana Road,
Karkala-574 104.
(Insurer of the vehicle No.
KA-18, B-7777)
2. Jeevandas Adhyanthaya,
S/o. Late N.S.Adhyanthaya,
Major,
C/o. R.Damodar Prabhu,
Prabhu Nivas, Vijayapura,
Chikkamagalur.
(Owner of the tourist bus
No.KA-18, B-7777)
... Respondents
(Notice to R2 dispensed with v/o. dated 20/01/2012;
R1 served)
This MFA is filed U/S 173(1) of MV Act, against the
Judgment and Award dated: 08/09/2008 passed in MVC
No.2016/2006(old MVC.No.186/2002) on the file of the
Presiding Officer, Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Fast Track Court-I, Hassan, partly allowing the claim
petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of
compensation.
This MFA coming on for Hearing, this day, the Court
delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal by the claimants is directed against the common judgment and award dated 8th September 3 2008, passed in MVC No.2016/2006 (old MVC.No.186/2002), by the Presiding Officer, Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court-I, Hassan, (for short, 'Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of `4,03,500/- awarded in favour of the claimants as against their claim for `10,00,000/-, is inadequate.
2. The facts in brief are that, the claimant No.1 is the wife and claimant Nos.2 to 4 are the minor children of deceased Manjegowda. They filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that, at about 2:30 A.M, on 25/26-10-2001, when the deceased was driving his autorickshaw bearing Registration No.CNH-8586 along with his wife Veenakshi and daughters to return to his house near Doddagenigere cross, B.M. Road, Kenchattahalli, at that time, the driver of the Bus bearing Registration No.KA- 18/B-7777 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Auto and caused the 4 accident and the auto was completely damaged and the deceased sustained grievous injuries to head and other vital parts of the body and the deceased died on the way to the Hospital.
3. It is the case of the appellants that, the deceased was aged about 32 years and was running an Autorickshaw, earning a sum of `200/- per day and was hale and healthy prior to the accident. On account of the untimely death of the deceased, the first appellant has lost her life partner, the children have lost the love and affection, inspiration and guidance and all the claimants have lost the social and moral support and therefore, they have to be compensated reasonably.
4. On account of the death of the deceased, the appellants filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, seeking compensation against the respondents. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 8th September, 2008. The Tribunal, 5 after considering the relevant material available on file and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, awarding a sum of `4,03,500/- under different heads, with 6% interest per annum, from the date of petition till the date of payment. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants are in appeal before this Court, seeking enhancement of compensation.
5. I have gone through the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal and heard the learned counsel appearing for appellants and also the Insurer, for quite some time.
6. After hearing learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Insurer, and after careful perusal of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, I am of the view that the compensation awarded by Tribunal 6 towards loss of dependency as also towards conventional heads is just and proper.
7. But, during the course of arguments, learned counsel appearing for appellants drew my attention to the latest decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and others (Civil Appeal No.3723/2012, arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.24489/2010), wherein, at paragraph 14, the Apex Court has held after referring to Sarla Verma's case (2009 ACJ 1298) and other relevant judgments, that 'Rather, it would be reasonable to say that a person who is self-employed or is engaged on fixed wages will also get 30% increase in his total income over a period of time and if he/she becomes victim of accident then the same formula deserves to be applied for calculating the amount of compensation.' Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically observed that "In our view, it will be naïve to say that the wages or total emoluments/income of a 7 person who is self-employed or who is employed on a fixed salary without provision for annual increment etc. would remain the same through out his life. The rise in the cost of living affects everyone across the board. It does not make any distinction between rich and poor....."
8. In the case on hand, admittedly, the deceased was working as an Autorickshaw Driver. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to 30% enhancement in respect of compensation awarded towards loss of dependency, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and others (supra). The Tribunal has awarded a sum of `3,84,000/- towards loss of dependency and 30% of it would work out to `1,15,200/- and the same is awarded with 6% interest from the date of petition till the date of realization.
8
Thus, the enhancement of compensation would come to `1,15,200/-, with interest at 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization.
9. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the appeal filed by appellants is allowed in part. The impugned common judgment and award dated 8th September 2008, passed in MVC No.2016/2006 (old MVC.No.186/2002), by the Presiding Officer, Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court-I, Hassan, is hereby modified, awarding a sum of `1,15,200/-, with interest at 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization, in addition to the compensation awarded by Tribunal.
The first respondent /Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of `1,15,200/-, with interest thereon at 6% per annum, within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment and award.
Immediately on such deposit by the Insurer, a sum of `1,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be 9 deposited in the name of the first appellant-wife of deceased, in Fixed Deposit, in any scheduled/Nationalized Bank, for a period of ten years, renewable by another ten years, with liberty reserved to her to withdraw the periodical interest.
Remaining sum of `15,200/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the first appellant, immediately.
Office to draw award, accordingly.
SD/-
JUDGE BMV*