Karnataka High Court
The Branch Manager vs Rangamma on 8 August, 2018
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R DEVDAS
MFA NO.7418 OF 2011 (MV)
BETWEEN:
THE BRANCH MANAGER
UNITED INDIA
INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
CHICKPET BRANCH, LAKSHMI COMPLEX
IST FLOOR, NO. 40, K R FORT,
BANGALORE-560 002.
BY REGIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD,
5TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
HUDSON CIRCLE,
BANGALORE - 560 027.
BY IT'S MANAGER
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RANGAMMA
AGE 43 YEARS
W/O MUNIKRISHNAPPA
2
2. V SRINIVAS
S/O LATE VENKATAPPA
AGED 40 YEARS
3. MANGALA
W/O DEVARAJ
AGED 38 YEARS
4. SUSHEELA
W/O SRIDHAR
AGE ABOUT 36 YEARS
5. V NAGARAJ
S/O LATE VENKATAPPA
AGE ABOUT 34 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
NO. 38, 8TH MAIN, 8TH CROSS
VIJAYANAGAR EAST, RPC LAYOUT,
BANGALORE - 560 040.
6. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
B.M.T.C., K H ROAD,
SHANTHINAGAR,
BANGALORE-560027.
... RESPONDENTS
(R1 TO R5 ARE SERVED
NOTICE TO R6 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 30.03.2011
PASSED IN MVC NO.7155/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE
XII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MACT,
BANGALORE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF
Rs.2,21,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE
DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
3
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL) :
The appellant-insurer is before this Court assailing the judgment and award dated 30.03.2011 in MVC No.7155/2009 passed by the XII Additional Small Causes Judge And Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for the sake of brevity) awarding compensation of Rs.2,21,000/- together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
One Smt.Puttamma met with an accident on 08.06.2009 which resulted in her death. Claim petition was filed by the children of Smt.Puttamma. As on the date of the claim, the claimants were aged between 41 years and 32 years. All the three daughters of 4 Smt.Puttamma, were married. The first son was aged about 38 years and the second son was aged about 32 years as on the date of the claim. Based on the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, the Tribunal concluded that the claimants were not dependent on the income of the deceased and therefore concluded that the claimants are not entitled for any compensation under the head of 'Loss of Dependency'. The Tribunal opined that the deceased was aged about 60 years at the time of the accident and that she was selling flowers for her livelihood. The Tribunal has taken Rs.3,000/- per month as notional income of the deceased.
3. Placing reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of A.Manavalagan Vs. A.Krishnamurthy And Ors. reported in ILR 2004 KAR 3268, the Tribunal concluded that the claimants are entitled for compensation under the head of 'Loss of Estate'. The Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd of the income towards personal expenses and living 5 expenses of the deceased and 2/3rd is taken as amount saved by the deceased towards her estate. The multiplier of '9' is taken based on the age of the deceased and the Tribunal proceeded to award Rs.2,16,000/- towards 'Loss of Estate' and Rs.5,000/- towards Funeral Expenses. In all, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.2,21,000/-.
4. The respondents-claimants are served and have remained absent.
5. Sri O.Mahesh, learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal erred in granting compensation under the head of 'Loss of Estate'. The learned Counsel points out to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manjuri Bera Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., reported in AIR 2007 SC 1474 to buttress his argument that if at all compensation was to be awarded in the facts and circumstances of this case, it could be done only under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. He submits that 6 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manjuri Bera (supra) has clearly held that even if there is no 'Loss of Dependency', the claimant, if he or she is a legal representative, will be entitled to compensation and the quantum shall be not less than the liability flowing from Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The compensation amount under Section 140(2) being fixed at Rs.50,000/- the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained.
6. This Court has given its anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company. What is noticeable is that the claim petition that was filed in Manjuri Bera's case was under Section 140 and not under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
7. His Lordship Justice S.H.Kapadia, in the conclusive portion of judgment in Manjuri Bera's case (supra) clearly held that His Lordship's opinion is confined 7 only to 'No Fault Liability' under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Whereas in the case of A.Manavalagan (supra), the one relied upon by the Tribunal, His Lordship Justice R.V.Raveendran as he then was, has held that when action is brought by the legal representatives on behalf of the estate of the deceased and the compensation when recovered, forms part of the assets of the estate of the deceased and the legal representatives are entitled for the compensation awarded under the head of 'Loss of Estate'.
8. What is noticeable is that Their Lordships in A.Manavalagan's case (supra) have held that in such cases, 75% of the income is deductible towards living and personal expenses of the deceased and only 25% should be taken as savings by the deceased.
9. The Tribunal in this case has deducted 1/3rd of the notional income and has taken 2/3rd as savings of the 8 deceased towards her estate. To that extent, the judgment and award needs to be modified.
10. Accordingly, 25% of the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- will be Rs.750/- per month. The appropriate multiplier is taken as '9' as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt.Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in 2009 ACJ 1298. Therefore, the compensation under the head 'Loss of Estate' works out to Rs.81,000/- (Rs.750 x 12 x '9'). The compensation under 'Funeral expenses' at Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is retained. A sum of Rs.4,000/- is awarded towards Loss of Love and Affection and the compensation is rounded off to Rs.90,000/-.
11. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and award is modified, entitling the claimants to a total compensation 9 of Rs.90,000/- as against Rs.2,21,000/-, with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.
12. The amount deposited by the appellant- Insurance Company shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional MACT, forthwith, for disbursement in favour of the claimants and the apportionment shall be made in terms of the award of the Tribunal. The Tribunal is further directed to issue notice to the petitioners- claimants intimating them about the deposit and enable them to collect the compensation amount awarded.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
SD/-
JUDGE JT/-