Karnataka High Court
Suresh B R S/O B Ramaiah vs N Gnana Murthy S/O M Nanjappa on 18 September, 2014
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP D. WAINGANKAR
M.F.A,NO.4224 OF 2012(MV)
BETWEEN:-
1. SURESH B.R
S/O B. RAMAIAH
F/O LATE B.S. ABHISHEK
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.
2. SMT. NALINI SURESH
W/O SRI. B.R. SURESH
M/O LATE B.S. ABHISHEK
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.
BOTH ARE R/AT 11TH MAIN
WEST OF CHORD ROAD
MAHALAKSHMIPURAM
BANGALORE-86.
... APPELLANTS
(By Sri: SHRIPAD V. SHASTRI & K.V. NAIK, ADVS.)
AND
1. N. GNANA MURTHY
S/O M. NANJAPPA
R/O No.1350, 2ND CROSS
WEST OF CHORD ROAD
MAHALAKSHMIPURAM LAYOUT
NAGAPURA,
BANGALORE-86.
2. HDFC GEN. INS. CO. LTD.,
UNITE 301/302
"EMBASSY CLASSIC", 3RD FLOOR
2
No.11, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD
BANGALORE.
RESPONDENTS
(By Sri: H.S. LINGARAJU, ADV, FOR R2
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH
V/O DATED 02/09/14)
--------
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.1.2011 PASSED IN
MVC No.3989/2008 ON THE FILE OF XIII ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSE JUDGE & MEMBER MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY
PRADEEP D. WAINGANKAR, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING.
JUDGMENT
This appeal by the claimants is against the judgment and award dated 18.1.2011 in M.V.C.No.3989/2008, whereby the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,90,000/- on account of death of the deceased aged about 20 years, an engineering student.
2., The brief facts which gave rise to this appeal are as under:-
On 18.1.2008 at about 10.45 a.m., deceased Abhishek was travelling in a car bearing No.KA-04-MA-3348 3 from Bhatkala towards Honnavara. On account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the car, it dashed against the road side bridge and toppled down. Consequently deceased sustained grievous injuries to which he succumbed while undergoing treatment.
3. The claimants-his both parents filed claim petition claiming compensation under Section 166 of M.V. Act from respondent Nos.1 and 2-owner and insurer of the car. The claim petition was opposed by insurance company. It came up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal on evaluation of the evidence recorded a finding that the accident and the resultant death of Abhishek is on account of rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver. Further the Tribunal taking into consideration the income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- and having regard to the age of the youngest of the parents and that the deceased was a bachelor, awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,90,000/- together with interest.
4
4. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, this appeal is preferred by the claimants on the ground that the income of the deceased taken at Rs.4,000/- p.m. by the Tribunal is on the lower side; that the deceased was a bright engineering student studying in sixth semester and was the only son, that the compensation awarded under the conventional heads is also on the lower side and requires to be enhanced.
I have heard both the learned counsel for the claimants-appellants and the respondent insurance company. Perused the records.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants would submit that deceased Abhishek aged about 20 years was a student doing B.E. in Electronics and Communication. He was in sixth semester and he was about to complete his course within a period of one year, he was the only son and under such circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have taken the income of the deceased at the minimum of Rs.10,000/- 5 per month and awarded compensation accordingly. Learned counsel has also submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the 'conventional heads' also requires to be enhanced considerably.
6. Per-contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- insurance company would contend that the Tribunal on proper appreciation of the evidence has rightly awarded compensation of Rs.3,90,000/- and that there is no scope for this Court to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal and hence he sought for dismissal of the appeal.
7. Having heard the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon perusal of the entire material placed on record, the only point that arises for consideration is as follows:-
"Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?6
8. At the out-set, it has to be stated that there is no dispute between the parties as to the negligence attributed to the driver of the car for the accident and the resultant death of deceased Abhishek. The liability is also not in dispute by the insurance company. The only dispute between the parties is regarding quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. It is not in dispute that the deceased was 20 years; he was in sixth semester; he was doing B.E. in Electronics and Communication in J.S.S. College of Technical Education, Bangalore and that he was the only son. But the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- p.m., like a coolie, which is not proper. It is not in dispute that he was in sixth semester and he was about to complete B.E. course within a period of one year. One he completed B.E. in Electronics & Communication, he would have earned at the minimum Rs.8,000 to Rs.10,000/- p.m. even during the period of recession. He was doing well in studies. It is seen from the records that he was the only son of the claimants and on account of untimely death of the only son, the claimants 7 have lost everything in their life. Though the death of deceased Abhishek cannot be compensated in terms of money, having regard to his age and that he was doing B.E. in Electronics and Telecommunication and the scope for the employment to engineering students in the present IT Sector, I deem it just and proper to take monthly income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- p.m. as against Rs.4,000/- taken by the Tribunal. Since he was a bachelor, 50% of the income has to be deducted towards his personal expenses had he been alive. Further the age of the youngest of the parents is relevant for determination of the compensation. The age of the mother is '40' years. Therefore, the multiplier to be pressed into service is '15'. Thus the, 'loss of dependency' comes to Rs.4,000/- x 12 x 15= Rs.7,20,000/-
9. Sofar as the amount awarded by the Tribunal under the ' conventional heads', is concerned, it is on the lower side. Admittedly, deceased met with an accident in Bhatkal Taluk from where the dead-body was brought to Bangalore. 8 The Tribunal has awarded a meager sum of Rs.10,000/- towards 'loss of love and affection', Rs.10,000/- towards' funeral expenses', and Rs.10,000/- towards 'loss of estate'. Having regard to the present trend, I deem it just and proper to award a sum of Rs.20,000/- under the head 'loss of love and affection', Rs.20,000/- under the head 'funeral expenses' and Rs.20,000/- under the head 'loss of estate' totally amounting to Rs.60,000/- as against Rs.30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Thus the claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.7,80,000/- as against Rs.3,90,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. There shall be an enhancement of compensation of Rs.3,90,000/-.
10. Accordingly, I pass the following order:-
Appeal is allowed-in-part. The appellants-claimants are awarded enhanced compensation of Rs.3,90,000/- with interest at the rate 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation, on respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. The 2nd respondent-Insurance company shall deposit the enhanced compensation together with interest 9 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The apportionment of the compensation shall be as ordered by the Tribunal. It is made clear that the claimants are not entitled for interest for the delayed period of 306 days.
Sd/-
JUDGE *mn/-