Karnataka High Court
R Swetha vs The Manager on 11 July, 2017
Author: B.Manohar
Bench: B Manohar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B MANOHAR
MFA No.10260/2012 (MV)
BETWEEN
1. R SWETHA, W/O LATE S.RAMESH,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
2. A.AKSHAYA, D/O LATE S.RAMESH,
AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS,
3. R.AKANKSHA, D/O LATE S.RAMESH,
AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS,
APPELLANTS NO.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS,
BEING REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL
GUARDIAN MOTHER 1ST APPELLANT.
ALL ARE R/AT NO.1-1-20,
1ST FLOOR, BRINDAVAN COLONY,
MALKAJGIRI, PRESENTLY
R/AT C/O SOMASHEKAR,
S/O MANJEGOWDA, NO.4042,
GIRISH NILAYA, 1ST MAIN,
HEMAVATHINAGAR,
HASSAN-573 201. .. APPELLANTS
(By Sri GIRISH B BALADARE, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE MANAGER
THE UNITED INDIA
INSURANCE CO., LTD,
NO.10/4 MITRA TOWERS,
KASTURBA ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 101.
2
2. HEMAVATHI, W/O VIJAYAKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
NO.2100, 1ST FLOOR, J. TOWNSHIP,
KADABAGERE, DASANAPURA
BANGALORE (NORTH)
- 560 101. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri T P VENKATAPATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R1,
R2 - NOTICE DISPENSED WITH V/C/O DTD:10.4.2010)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
07.03.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.1376/2009 ON THE
FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
MEMBER, MACT, HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT
Appellants are the claimants. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the judgment and award dated 7th March, 2012 passed in MVC No.1376/2009 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Hassan (for short `Tribunal'), they have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. The appellants are the wife and children of the deceased S Ramesh. They filed a claim petition contending that on 24.12.2008, while the deceased and 3 his relatives were proceeding in a Tata Indica car bearing Registration No.KA-05/D-524 from Bengaluru to Dharmasthala. While they were returning from Dharmasthala to Bengaluru, near Kattarighatta Gate, the driver of the said car drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against another car bearing Registration No.KA-05/AE-279. Due to that, Ramesh sustained grievous injuries all over the body and subsequently succumbed to the injuries. In the claim petition, it was contended that the deceased was working as a Senior Accountant in Rishi Jaideep Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. and drawing salary of Rs.21,000/- per month. In view of death of the deceased, the family has lost the bread earner. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Tata Indica Car, which was insured with the 2nd respondent. Hence, both the respondents are liable to compensate the claimants and sought for compensation of Rs.40,00,000/-.
3. The Insurance Company defended the case by filing written statement.
4
4. After trial, the Tribunal held that due to actionable negligence on the part of driver of Tata Indica car, the accident occurred. The claimants are the wife and children of the deceased and they are entitled for compensation.
5. With regard to quantum of compensation is concerned, though the claimants claimed that the deceased was working as Senior Accountant and drawing a salary of Rs.21,000/- per month. In proof of the same, they produced the salary certificate. The author of the salary certificate was not examined to prove the said aspect of the matter. In view of that, the Tribunal taking into consideration the income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- per month, deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses and applying the multiplier 16 awarded a sum of Rs.5,12,000/- towards `loss of dependency' and a sum of Rs.70,000/- towards conventional heads. In all, a sum of Rs.5,82,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. has been awarded by the Tribunal. Since the vehicle was covered by insurance policy, the liability was fastened on the Insurance Company to 5 compensate the claimants. The claimants being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation have preferred this appeal.
6. Sri Girish B Baladare, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants contended that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is too meager. At the time of accident, the deceased was working as Senior Accountant. One of the co-employees of the Company was examined as PW5 to prove that the deceased was working in the said Company. The appointment order of the deceased was produced to prove that the deceased was working in the said company. Though the competent officer was not examined to prove the salary certificate, the Tribunal ought to have taken reasonable income and awarded compensation.
7. On the other hand, Sri T P Venkatapathi, learned Advocate appearing for the 1st respondent argued in support of the judgment and award and contended that in the absence of necessary documents 6 regarding income of the deceased, the Tribunal had taken a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month. There is no infirmity or irregularity in the impugned judgment and award and sought for dismissal of the claimants.
8. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by Sri Girish B Baladare, learned Advocates for the appellants and Sri T P Venkatapathi, learned Advocate appearing for the 1st respondent, perused the judgment and award and oral and documentary evidence.
9. The dispute in this appeal is only with regard to quantum of compensation.
10. The main contention of the appellants is that the income of the deceased Rs.4,000/- per month taken by the Tribunal is very meager. I have perused the judgment produced by the parties. The deceased was working as Senior Accountant at Rishi Jaideep Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. The appointment order of the deceased was produced as Ex.P37. He was appointed as Senior Accountant. However, the Authorised person 7 was not examined to prove the income of the deceased, though the co-employee examined as PW5, he is not the competent person to say regarding the salary of the deceased. The accident occurred in the year 2008. Hence, taking into consideration the income of the deceased as Rs.7,000/- per month, deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenditure as the deceased was aged about 35 years as on the date of accident applying the multiplier 15, the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.8,40,000/- towards `loss of dependency' as against Rs.5,12,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Further, at the young age of 27 years, the wife lost the company of the husband and love and affection. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh & others -vs- Rajbir Singh & Ors. reported in 2013 ACJ 1403, the wife is entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- towards `loss of consortium'. Further, the minor children have lost the love and affection of their father. Hence, they are entitled for compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards `love and affection'. Further the claimants are entitled for 8 compensation of Rs.35,000/- towards conventional heads. In all, the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- as against a sum of Rs.5,82,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER Appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 7th March, 2012 passed in MVC No.1376/2009 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hassan, is modified. The claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- as against Rs.5,82,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. The Insurance Company is liable to compensate the claimants.
Sd/-
JUDGE Bkm.