Karnataka High Court
The United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Smt C S Lakshmi @ Baby W/O Late Sri ... on 8 July, 2013
Bench: N.K.Patil, B.Manohar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 8TH 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. 1153 OF 2006 (MV)
BETWEEN
THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
JAYADEVA COMPLEX
B.H.ROAD, TUMKUR
BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICE
NO.25, SHANKARNARAYANA BUILDING
M.G.ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS
DEPUTY MANAGER
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI P.B. RAJU, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SMT.C.S. LAKSHMI @ BABY
W/O. LATE SRI KEMPARAJU
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
2. BHUMIKA
D/O. LATE SRI KEMPARAJU
AGED ABOUT 2 YEARS
RESPONDENT NO.2 BEING
MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER
2
NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER/ 1ST RESPONDENT
3. SMT.GANGAMMA
W/O. SRI.C.S. BASAVARAJU
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
4. SRI.C.S.BASAVARAJU
S/O. LATE SRI.SANJEEVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT C/O.S. NAGARAJU
NO.185, 4TH CROSS,
VIDYANAGAR, T.DASARAHALLI
BANGALORE - 560 057
5. SRI.K.N. KUMAR
(DRIVER CUM OWNER)
S/O. LATE SRI. NANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
RESIDING AT KODIYALA
AT POST, CHELUR HOBLI
GUBBI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT ... RESPONDENTS
(BY M/S. KLK LAW ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES FOR
C/R1; SRI. RAJANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4;
NOTICE TO R5 DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED
17/02/2006)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:
29.08.2005 PASSED IN MVC NO.5979/2004 ON THE
FILE OF III ADDL.JUDGE & MEMBER, MACT,
BANGALORE (SCCH-18), AWARDING A
COMPENSATION OF RS.7,15,000/- WITH INTEREST AT
6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS
REALISATION.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, N.K. PATIL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
:J U D G M E N T:
This appeal by the insurer is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 29.08.2005 passed in MVC No.5979/2004 on the file of the III Addl. Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH NO.18), (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal' for short).
2. By its judgment and award, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.7,15,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization as against the claim made by the claimants, on account of death of the deceased Sri Kemparaju in the road traffic accident.
3. In brief, the facts of the case are:
The 1st respondent is the wife, the 2nd respondent is the minor daughter and 3rd and 4th respondents are the parents of the deceased and they have filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under section 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation of 4 15,00,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased in the road traffic accident that occurred on 03.09.2004 at about 8.30 p.m., when the deceased was riding his cycle on Tumkur Road near 2nd Gate of RMC Yard due to rash and negligent riding by the rider of TVS Victor bearing No. KA-06/U-6137 from opposite direction. Due to the impact, he fell down, sustained severe injuries and immediately shifted to SSMC Hospital in Tumkur and from there he was referred to NIMHANS, Bangalore but on the way to hospital he died. It was case of the respondents that, the deceased was aged about 26 years and hale and healthy prior to accident, and was working as an Electrician-cum-Motor Re-vinder and earning Rs.5,000/- per month and used to spent the entire earnings to the welfare of the family. The 1st respondent has lost her husband at the young age of 20 years and 2nd respondent has lost her father at the age of just 1 year and parents have lost their son and 5 they are deprived of seeing the future of their son.
The entire family has lost hopes, security and inspiration in the life. Due to his untimely death they suffered socially and economically. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal and the Tribunal after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and other material available on file, has determined the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month as held in paragraphs 13 of the judgment and deducting 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased and applying multiplier to age of the deceased determined the loss of dependency at Rs.6,80,000/- and awarded Rs.35,000/- towards conventional heads.
4. The appellant-insurer being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal has presented this appeal for reduction of compensation, contending that the compensation 6 awarded is disproportionate to the source of income of the deceased.
5. The submission of Sri P.B. Raju, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-insurer at the outset is that, the Tribunal has committed an error in taking monthly income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- which is disproportionate to the salary of the deceased since there is no credible document to show said income and the employer has not maintained register or attendance to show the mode of payment of the salary. Therefore the income taken at Rs.5,000/- per month is on the higher side and the same may be reduced and re-determine the compensation towards loss of dependency.
6. As against this the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4/claimants inter alia contended and substantiated that, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper. It is passed after due consideration of the 7 oral and documentary evidence. However, the Tribunal instead of deducting 1/4th has deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased and the claimants have not filed any cross-objections. Therefore the income of the deceased taken by the Tribunal at Rs.5,000/- per month is just and reasonable and interference by this Court is not called for. Therefore, he submits that, the appeal may be dismissed as devoid of merits.
7. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and on perusal of the material available on record, including the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, it emerges that the deceased died in the road traffic accident and the claimants are none other than the wife, daughter and parents of the deceased. It is not in dispute that, the deceased was aged about 26 years and hale and healthy prior to the date of accident and was working as Electrician-cum- 8 Motor Re-vinder. The Tribunal is right in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month considering the age, avocation, year of the accident and number of dependents of the deceased. Therefore, we do not find any assistance in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant- insurer. In Paragraph 13 of the judgment the Tribunal after critical evaluation of the documents available on record has awarded Rs. 6,80,000/- towards loss of dependency and Rs.35,000/- towards conventional heads and it is just and proper and we do not find any reason to interfere in the compensation awarded by Tribunal, nor the appellant has made out any good ground for interference in the well considered judgment passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, appeal is hereby dismissed as devoid of merits.
9
The amount in deposit by the appellant-insurer shall be transferred to the Jurisdictional Tribunal immediately.
Office to draw the award accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Sbs*