Karnataka High Court
Smt C Ningamma @ C.Lingamma vs M/S United India Ins Co Ltd on 18 June, 2018
Bench: Raghvendra S.Chauhan, H T Narendra Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE 2018
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
M. F. A. NO.1351 OF 2015 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. C. NINGAMMA @ C. LINGAMMA
W/O. LATE SRIDHAR,
D/O. S. CHIDANANDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS.
2. KUM. PRERANA
D/O. LATE SRIDHAR,
AGED ABOUT 3 YEARS.
3. V. RANGASWAMY
S/O. VEERANNA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.
4. SMT. JAYAMMA @ L. JAYAMMA
W/O. V. RANGASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
APPELLANT NO.2 IS MINOR,
REPRESENTED THROUGH THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN
MOTHER I.E., 1ST APPELLANT HEREIN.
ALL ARE R/O. JADEKUNTE VILLAGE,
CHALLAKERE TQ.,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577522.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE NAGARAJA, ADV.)
2
AND:
1. M/S. UNITED INDIA INS. CO. LTD.,
REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
DAVANAGERE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
MMK COMPLEX,
AKKAMAHADEVI ROAD, P. J. EXTENSION,
DAVANAGERE-577002.
2. G. ASHWATHNARAYANA BABU
S/O. LATE G. LINGAPPA,
MAJOR, OWNER OF BUS KA-51/7973,
R/O. OPP TO PETROL BUNK,
CHANDRAPURA ROAD, ANEKAL,
BANGALORE TQ & DISTRICT-562106.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAVISH BENNI, ADV. FOR R-1;
V/O DATED 12.06.2018 NOTICE TO R-2 IS
DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.07.2014 PASSED IN
MVC NO.116/2012, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND ADDITIONAL MACT, CHALLAKERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appellants have challenged the legality of the award, dated 22.07.2014, passed by the Senior Civil Judge & Additional MACT, Challakere, whereby for the death of Mr. R. Sridhar, the appellants have been 3 granted a compensation of Rs.10,93,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of realization.
2. Shortly put, the facts of the case are that on 16.12.2011, Mr. Sridhar was traveling in a bus along with other passengers from Challakere to Hiriyur. When the bus reached near Kalavibagi Village, the driver of the bus drove the bus in such a rash and negligent manner that it dashed against a lorry, bearing Reg.No.KA-06-B-273, which was coming from the opposite direction. Due to the accident, four persons sustained severe injuries, and eventually succumbed to them. Therefore, different claim petitions were filed by different claimants, including the appellants, before the learned Tribunal. In order to substantiate their case, the claimants examined seven witnesses, and submitted twenty-one documents. On the other hand, the defendant examined a single witness, and submitted a single document. After appreciation of the evidence, the 4 learned Tribunal granted the compensation as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal for enhancement.
3. Mr. Spoorthy Hegde Nagaraja, the learned counsel for the appellants, has raised the following contentions before this Court: firstly, although the learned Tribunal had assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/- per month, considering the fact that the deceased was working as a Physical Education Instructor with the Rashtriya Education Trust, the appellants were entitled to receive compensation for "loss of future prospects".
Secondly, since the deceased had left four dependants, the learned Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4th as the amount that the deceased would have spent on himself, and not 1/3rd. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the loss of dependency needs to be recalculated by this Court. 5
Thirdly, despite the fact that the appellant No.1, Smt. C. Ningamma, has lost her husband at a young age, no compensation has been granted to her for "loss of consortium".
Fourthly, despite the fact that the appellant No.2 had lost her father at the young age of 3 years, and appellant Nos.3 and 4 have lost their son at an advanced age, none of them have been granted any compensation for "loss of love and affection".
Lastly, no compensation has been granted by the learned Tribunal for "loss of estate". Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, the compensation should be enhanced. The impugned award needs to be modified.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Ravish Benni, the learned counsel for the respondent - Insurance Company, submits that even according to the learned Tribunal there was lack of evidence to establish the fact 6 that the deceased was a permanent employee of the Rashtriya Education Trust. Therefore, the question of granting compensation for "loss of future prospect" does not even arise in the present case. Hence the learned counsel has supported the impugned award.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the impugned award.
6. In the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED -V- PRANAY SETHI & ORS. (AIR 2017 SC 5157), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with the issue as to under what circumstances the claimants would be entitled to receive compensation for "loss of future prospects". In para 61(iv), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
"In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased 7 was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component."
7. Thus, according to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is not an essential requirement that the deceased should be a permanent employee. Even if the deceased were a self-employed, or on a fixed salary, even then the claimants will be entitled to receive compensation for loss of future prospects. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that since the deceased was not a permanent employee of the Rashtriya Education Trust, therefore the claimants are disentitled from receiving any compensation for the loss of future prospects, is clearly unacceptable.
8. Moreover, Mr. P. Ramesha (P.W.7) has clearly stated that Mr. Sridhar was an employee of the Trust. 8 The claimants had also produced the salary certificate, Ex.P53, which clearly reveal that Mr. Sridhar was earning an income of Rs.8,000/- per month. Thus, both through oral and documentary evidence, the appellants have established the fact that Mr. Sridhar was on a fixed salary of Rs.8,000/- per month. Hence the appellants are certainly entitled to receive the compensation for "loss of future prospects".
9. Furthermore, since the deceased was 27 years old at the time of his death, according to the principle laid down in the case of PRANAY SETHI (supra), the appellants would be entitled to receive 40% of his income, i.e. 40% of Rs.96,000/- as the compensation for loss of future prospects.
10. In the case of SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS
-V- DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER (AIR 2009 SC 3104), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly opined that 1/4th should be taken as 9 the personal expenses that the deceased would have incurred for himself, in case he leaves behind four to six dependants. Admittedly, in the present case, the deceased has left behind four dependants. Yet the learned Tribunal has deducted merely 1/3rd as the personal expenses of the deceased. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellants is justified that the deduction made by the learned Tribunal is unjustified. Hence only 1/4th should be taken as the income the deceased would have spent on himself. Thus, the loss of dependency needs to be recalculated as under:
Monthly income - 8,000/-
Add: 40% towards future prospects - 3,200/-
Total - 11,200/-
Less: ¼ towards personal expenses - 2,800/-
Actual monthly income - 8,400/-
Multiplier - 17
Loss of dependency
8,400 x 12 x 17 - Rs.17,13,600/-
11. Despite the fact that a young woman, aged 25 years, has suddenly lost the company of her husband, the learned Tribunal has failed to grant even a single 10 penny for "the loss of consortium" suffered by her. The omission on the part of the learned Tribunal to grant compensation in the said category is rather surprising. Therefore, this Court grants Rs.40,000/- to the appellant No.1 for "loss of consortium".
12. Surprisingly, despite the fact that a young child has suddenly lost the love and affection of her father, inspite of the fact that appellant Nos.3 and 4 have lost the love and affection of their son, the learned Tribunal has failed to grant any compensation to the three appellants in the category of "loss of love and affection". Therefore, this Court grants appellant Nos.2, 3 and 4, Rs.5,000/- each. Thus the compensation for "the loss of love and affection" is Rs.15,000/-.
13. In the case PRANAY SETHI (supra), this Court has clearly opined that with the death of a person, compensation needs to be paid for "loss of estate". But, even for the said category, the learned 11 Tribunal has maintained a studied silence. Therefore, this Court grants compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the appellants for "the loss of estate" suffered by them.
14. For the reasons stated above, this appeal is hereby allowed. The award dated 22.07.2014, stands modified as under:
As awarded As awarded
Compensation under by the by this
different Heads Tribunal Court
(Rs.) (Rs.)
Loss of dependency 10,88,000/- 17,13,600/-
Loss of consortium - 40,000/-
Loss of love and affection - 15,000/-
Loss of estate - 10,000/-
Funeral Expenses 5,000/- 5,000/-
Total 10,93,000/- 17,83,600/-
15. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till the date of realization within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy 12 of this judgment. The amount so deposited shall be apportioned in accordance with the directions of the learned Tribunal. The amount payable to the appellant No.2, the minor child, shall be kept in a fixed deposit with a Nationalized Bank, to be renewed annually, till she attains the age of majority.
SD/-
JUDGE SD/-
JUDGE RD