Karnataka High Court
Smt Alankananda Sonar vs Icici Lombard General Ins. Co. Ltd. on 9 September, 2015
Bench: N.K.Patil, P.S.Dinesh Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2015
:PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. PATIL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR
M.F.A.No. 6225 of 2014 (MV)
Between:
Smt. Alankananda Sonar,
W/o. Late Khem Bahadur Sonar,
Age: 34 years,
R/at. Itabhata, Digboi Post,
Sub-Division Margherita,
Dist. Tinsukia, Assam-786 171.
....Appellant
(By Smt. Sandhya Rao.L, for Sri. B.R. Guruprasad,
Advocate)
And:
1. ICICI Lombard General Ins. Co. Ltd.,
Zenith House, Keshava Khade Marg,
Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400 008.
Rep. by its Manager.
2. M/s. VRL Logistics Ltd.,
Reg. & Admn. Office,
Bangalore Rd., Varuru,
Hubli, Dharwad-580 028.
Rep. by its Managing Director.
....Respondents
(By Sri. B. Pradeep, Advocate for R1;
Sri. Aravind M. Neglur, Advocate for R2)
2
This MFA is filed U/s. 173(1) of MV Act against the
Judgment and Award dated: 29/07/2013, passed in MVC
No.188/2012, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge
and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mangalore,
partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and
seeking enhancement of compensation.
This M.F.A. coming on for Admission this day,
N.K. PATIL J, delivered the following:
:J U D G M E N T:
This appeal by the appellant-claimant is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 29/07/2013, passed in MVC No.188/2012, by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mangalore, (hereinafter referred to as ' Tribunal' for short), for enhancement of compensation., on the ground that, a sum of `12,72,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under different heads with current and future interest at 6% per annum as against the claim `40,00,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased Sri. Khem Bahadur Sonar, in the road traffic accident is inadequate.
2. In brief, the facts of the case are:
3
The appellant is the wife of the deceased. She has filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation against the respondents, on account of the death of the deceased in the road traffic accident, contending that, on 6.10.2011 at about 10.30 p.m. deceased was walking on the road near Samrudhi Bar and Restaurant, Kulai, Mangalore Taluk, at that time, the driver of the bus bearing Reg.No.KA.20.L.4651 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased. Due to which, deceased sustained injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to A.J.Hospital, Mangalore, where Doctors have declared him as dead.
3. It is the further case of the appellant that, deceased was aged about 33 years, hale and healthy prior to the accident, working as Pipe Fitter at Technimont ICB Pvt.Ltd. in MRPL site, Mangalore and earning `15,000/- per month and looking after the welfare of the family by contributing his entire earnings 4 to the family. Due to his untimely death, appellant- wife has lost her husband and also suffered financial loss as she has lost the bread earner, apart from mental shock and agony.
4. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and other material available on file, has allowed the claim petition in part and awarded the compensation of `12,72,000/- under different heads with current and future interest at 6% p.a..
5. Being dis- satisfied with the quantum of compensation and the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has presented this appeal, for enhancement.
6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel for Insurer.
7. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, at the outset is that, the 5 deceased was aged about 33 years, appellant is the wife of the deceased and he was hale and healthy prior to the accident that occurred on 6.10.2011. Further, she has submitted that, the Tribunal has grossly erred in taking the income of the deceased at `6,000/- per month contrary to the documentary evidence produced by the appellant as per the extraction made by the Tribunal in para-22 of its judgment which shows the average income of the deceased was more than `13,000/- per month. Therefore, she submitted that the income of the deceased may be re-assessed reasonably at rupees 12 to 13 thousand per month. Further, she submits that, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards conventional heads is also on the lower side and is liable to be enhanced reasonably. Further, she submits that, the rate of interest awarded is on the lower side and is liable to be enhanced reasonably in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court and this Court atleast at 9 to 10%. Therefore, she 6 submitted that the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified.
8. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the Insurer, inter-alia, contended and substantiated that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file. Further he submits that, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% towards personal and living expenses of the deceased on the ground that wife is the only dependant and submitted that appellant has not made out any good grounds for enhancing the compensation amount. Therefore, he submitted that the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
9. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties and after careful perusal of the material available on record at threadbare, including the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the only point that arises for our consideration is: 7
Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?
10. The occurrence of the accident and the resultant death of the deceased are not in dispute. Further, it is not in dispute that deceased was aged about 33 years, hale and healthy prior to the accident, working as Pipe Fitter and died on account of the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. After careful perusal of para-22 of the judgment, the Tribunal has extracted the salary slips of the deceased produced by the appellant as per Exs.P10 to P18 and the average salary for last three months comes to `13,000/- and above per month. Therefore, having regard to the age, occupation and year of the accident and the dependant is the wife alone who was aged about 32 years and she has lost her husband, we re-assess the income of the deceased at `12,000/- per month to meet the ends of justice instead of `6,000/- per month as assessed by the Tribunal. Out of which, if 1/3rd (`4,000/-) is 8 deducted towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased as rightly done by the Tribunal, his net contribution to the family comes to `8,000/- per month. The appropriate multiplier applicable is '16' since deceased was aged about 33 years in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 as rightly adopted by the Tribunal. Therefore, we re-determine the loss of dependency at `15,36,000/- (`8,000/- x 12 x 16) instead of `11,52,000/- awarded by the Tribunal and accordingly, it is awarded.
11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on account of the untimely death of the deceased, wife has lost her husband and in the light of the judgments of the Apex Court and this Court, we deem it fit to award a sum of `1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium as against `25,000/-, `50,000/- towards loss of love and affection as against `25,000/- and `25,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses 9 as against `45,000/-. However, a sum of `25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of estate is just and reasonable and therefore, it does not call for interference.
Thus, the appellant is entitled to a total compensation of `17,36,000/- instead of `12,72,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal.
12. Regarding rate of interest, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, 6% interest per annum awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side, since the accident is of the year 2011. In the light of the judgment of Apex Court and this Court, we award the rate of interest at 9% per annum on the enhanced compensation instead of 6% awarded by the Tribunal.
There would be an enhancement of `4,64,000/- with interest at 9% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization (excluding interest for the delayed period of 312 days in filing the appeal).
10
13. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 29/07/2013, passed in MVC No.188/2012, by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mangalore, is hereby modified, awarding a sum of `4,64,000/- with interest at 9% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization (excluding interest for the delayed period of 312 days in filing the appeal), in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
The Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of `4,64,000/- with interest at 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization (excluding interest for the delayed period of 312 days in filing the appeal), within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Immediately on deposit by the Insurer, the enhanced compensation of `4,64,000/-, a sum of `3,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be 11 invested in the Fixed Deposit in the name of appellant in any Nationalized or Scheduled or Grameena Bank, for a period of 10 years, renewable by another 10 years, with liberty reserved to her to withdraw the interest accrued on it, periodically.
Remaining sum of `1,64,000/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of appellant immediately.
Draw the award accordingly.
SD/-
JUDGE SD/-
JUDGE tsn*