Karnataka High Court
Smt Uma @ Ujjinamma vs Sri G Ramanujaiah on 13 December, 2013
Bench: N.K.Patil, R.B Budihal
1
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2013,
: PRESENT :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. PATIL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
M.F.A.NO.220 OF 2010 (MV)
Between:
1. Smt. Uma @ Ujjinamma,
W/o. Late Honnashamaiah,
Aged about 51 years,
R/at. No.12, 3rd Cross,
Nelakadaranahalli,
Nagasandra Post,
Bangalore-73.
2. Ms. Latha,
D/o. Late Honnashamaiah,
Aged about 28 years,
R/at. No.12, 3rd Cross,
Nelakadaranahalli,
Nagasandra Post,
Bangalore-73.
3. Sri. Mahesh,
S/o. Late Honnashamaiah,
Aged about 30 years,
R/at. No.12, 3rd Cross,
Nelakadaranahalli,
Nagasandra Post,
Bangalore-73.
2
4. Sri. Lokesh,
S/o. Late Honnashamaiah,
Aged about 26 years,
R/at. No.12, 3rd Cross,
Nelakadaranahalli,
Nagasandra Post,
Bangalore-73.
... Appellants
(By Smt. Prathima.N.H, for
Shri. P.M.Siddamallappa, for Mylaraiah Associates)
And:
1. Sri. G. Ramanujaiah,
Pearl Industries (P) Ltd.,
Plot No.505/506,
4th Phase, Peenya,
Bangalore.
2. The Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd.,
No.20, I floor, 100 feet Road,
Jalahalli Cross,
Bangalore-57.
3. The Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd.,
No.20, I Floor, 100 feet Road,
Jalahalli Cross,
Bangalore-57.
... Respondents
(By Shri. C.S. Hiremath, Advocate for R1;
Shri. V. Narayanaswamy, Advocate for R2;
R3 deleted v/o. dated 25/02/2013)
******
This MFA is filed U/S 173(1) of MV Act against the
Judgment and Award dated: 23/09/2009 passed in MVC
No.5281/2007 on the file of the XIX Additional Small Cause
Judge & Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-
3
17), partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and
seeking enhancement of compensation.
This MFA coming on for Hearing, this day,
N.K. PATIL. J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal by the claimants is directed against the judgment and award dated 23rd September 2009, passed in MVC No.5281/2007, by the XIX Additional Small Cause Judge & Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-17), (for short, 'Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of `4,93,000/- awarded in favour of the claimants as against their claim for `20,00,000/-, is inadequate.
2. The facts in brief are that, the claimants are the wife and children of the deceased Honnashamaih. They filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that, at about 11:30 A.M, on 11-02-2007, when the deceased was proceeding on a Honda Unicorn Motor Cycle, bearing Registration No.KA-02/EK-4132, as pillion rider, to go 4 to their native place towards Kunigal on NH-48, near Kempalinganahalli cross, he met with an accident on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of another Motor bike bearing Registration No.KA-02/ER- 4981. Due to the impact, the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Sridi Sai Hospital,Bangalore and from there to Manipal Hospital and he died after three days of accident.
3. It is the case of the appellants that, the deceased was aged about 53 years and working as Supervisor at Pearl Insulations Pvt.Ltd., drawing salary of a sum of `14,000/- per month and was hale and healthy prior to the accident. On account of the untimely death of the deceased, the appellants have lost the love and affection, inspiration and guidance, apart from social, financial 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, 5 seeking compensation against the respondents. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 23rd September, 2009. The Tribunal, 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 `4,93,000/- 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. We 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. Learned counsel appearing for claimants/appellants vehemently submitted that, the Tribunal committed an error in assessing the income of the deceased at only `4,500/- per month, ignoring the 6 documentary evidence produced by claimants at Exs.P8 and P10, showing the monthly salary of the deceased as `14,000/-. She submits that, the deceased was aged about 53 years and working as Supervisor in a private Company, drawing salary of `14,000/- per month and to that effect they have produced Exs.P8 and P10. But, disbelieving the same, the Tribunal, without any basis has assessed the income of the deceased at only `4,500/- per month. The deceased has left behind the wife and three children and the deceased was the only earning member in the family and on account of his untimely and unnatural death, the appellants are under severe financial crisis and finding it difficult to eek out their livelihood.
Further, learned counsel appearing for appellants, to substantiate regarding the income of the deceased, has now produced Form No.16 under Rule 31(1)(a), which is a certificate issued under Section 203 of the Income Tax Act along with the PAN card of the deceased bearing No.ABDPH1589F issued by the Commissioner 7 of Income Tax (Computer Operations), by filing a memo. He specifically submitted that both these clinching documentary evidence could not be produced before the Tribunal due to inadvertence. Further, she submitted that in support of the income, the claimants have produced two salary certificates at Exs.P8 and P10 and the deceased was regularly filing income tax returns and was an assessee. Therefore, she submitted that this Court at least may take the gross salary of the deceased at `1,05,467/- without taking the other benefits entitled to by the deceased and deduct 1/4th towards the personal expenses of the deceased and adopting multiplier of '11' for the age of the deceased, reasonable compensation be awarded towards loss of dependency as also under conventional heads by modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal.
Further, she specifically submitted that the deceased survived for three days before succumbing to the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident 8 and during this period, the claimants had spent huge amount towards medical expenses, including conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges. Therefore compensation may be awarded towards medical and other incidental expenses as claimed by the appellants.
7. As against this, learned counsel appearing for Insurer vehemently submitted that the compensation awarded by Tribunal is after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, taking into consideration the age, avocation, year of accident and also the number of dependents. Hence, interference in the same is not called for.
8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, and after careful perusal of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, including the original records placed before us, the only point that arise for our consideration in this appeal is, 9 Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal is just and reasonable?
The undisputed facts of the case are the occurrence of accident and the resultant death of the deceased. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was aged about 53 years and working as supervisor at Pearl Insulations Private Limited. It is further not disputed that the claimants are none other than the wife and children of deceased. It is further not in dispute that, to substantiate the income, the claimants have produced Salary Certificates at Exs.P8 and P10. At Ex.P8, it is stated that the deceased was working with Pearl Insulations Pvt. Ltd. Till 10-02-2007, i.e. till the date of accident on 11-02-2007 and drawing gross salary per month at `13,400/- and reimbursement of conveyance at `600/-, totally a sum of `14,000/- per month. The said document is issued by the Managing Director of the said Company. At Ex.P10, it is stated 10 that the deceased was working in Pearl Insulations Pvt.Ltd. from 01-03-1989 upto 10-02-2007 and drawing gross salary of `13,400/- and net salary of `11,710/- per month and bonus paid for financial year 2006-07 is `17,439/-. The said document is issued by the authorized signatory.
9. Further, as contended by the learned counsel appearing for appellants, the deceased was filing the income tax returns regularly and the claimants have filed the latest Form No.16, under Rule 31(1)(a), a Certificate issued under Section 203 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, showing the gross salary for the assessment year 2007-08 as `1,05,467/- per annum. There is some substance in the submission of the learned counsel appearing for appellants. The Tribunal, relying upon Exs.P8 and P10 could have assessed reasonable monthly income of the deceased and it is not justified in assessing the income of the deceased at only `4,500/- per month. Therefore, having regard to the Salary Certificates at Exs.P8 and P10 coupled with Form No.16 11 filed along with the memo and also the PAN card of the deceased, we accept the said documents and re-assess the income of the deceased at `1,05,467/- per annum. Out of this if a sum of `2,400/- is deducted towards professional tax, the income comes to `1,03,067/- per annum. Since the claimants are four in number, 1/4th has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. But, all the children are major. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we deduct 1/3rd towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased. Accordingly, If 1/3rd (i.e. `34,355/-) is deducted from `1,03,067/- towards his personal expenses, the net income would be `68,712/- per annum. Further, it is stated that the deceased was aged about 53 years as on the date of accident. Therefore, for the said age, the proper multiplier applicable is '11' as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court Sarla Verma's case (2009 ACJ 1298) as rightly adopted by Tribunal. Thus, the compensation towards loss of dependency would work 12 out to `7,55,832/- (i.e. `68,71/- x '11') as against `3,96,000/- awarded by Tribunal.
10. Further, the Tribunal erred in awarding higher compensation towards conventional heads. But, as per the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case (supra), we award a sum of `50,000/- under the conventional heads, , viz. loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, loss of estate and transportation of dead body and funeral expenses as against the compensation awarded by Tribunal.
11. Further, the Tribunal is justified in awarding a sum of `10,000/- towards medical expenses, as the deceased survived for three days before succumbing to the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident and was treated in two Hospitals. Therefore, interference in the same is uncalled for.
Thus, the total compensation payable to claimants works out to `8,15,832/- as against `4,93,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. There would be enhancement of compensation by a sum of `3,22,832/- with interest 13 at 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization.
12. 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 judgment and award dated 23rd September 2009, passed in MVC No.5281/2007, by the XIX Additional Small Cause Judge & Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-17), is hereby modified, awarding a sum of `8,15,832/- as against `4,93,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at 6% per annum on the enhanced sum, from the date of petition till the date of realization. Thus, there would be enhancement of compensation by a sum of `3,22,832/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.
The Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of `3,22,832/-, with interest thereon at 6% per annum, jointly and 14 severally, within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment.
Immediately on such deposit by Respondent Nos.1 and 2, a sum of `2,50,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the name of first appellant- wife of deceased, in Fixed Deposit, in any scheduled/ Nationalized Bank, for a period of ten years, renewable by five years, with liberty reserved to her to withdraw the periodical interest.
Remaining sum of `72,832/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the first appellant, immediately.
Office to draw award, accordingly.
SD/-
JUDGE SD/-
JUDGE BMV*