Karnataka High Court
Shri Muniraju vs The Managing Director on 16 July, 2018
Author: Krishna S Dixit
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
M.F.A. NO. 3491 OF 2010 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI. MUNIRAJU
S/O LATE SHRI MUNISWAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
2. SMT. RATHANAMMA
W/O SHRI. MUNIRAJU
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
3. MASTER MURALI
S/O SHRI. MUNIRAJU
AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS,
APPELLANT NO.3 IS MINOR
R/BY HIS FATHER AS A
NATURAL GUARDIAN BY
THE APPELLANT NO.1
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
RAMAGONDANAHALLI
SINGANAYAKANAHALLI
YELAHANKA
BENGALURU-560 064.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.L. HARISH KUMAR, ADVOCATE )
2
AND:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
BMTC, SHANTHINAGAR
K H ROAD, DOUBLE ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027
2. UNITED INSURANCE CO. LTD
BRANCH OFFICE, NO.40, 1ST FLOOR
LAKSHMI COMPLEX, OPPOSITE VANI
VILAS HOSPITAL, K R ROAD FORT
BENGALURU - 560 002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. H.R.RENUKA, ADVOCATE FOR R1
SRI. O.MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.09.2009 PASSED IN
MVC NO.703/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE XII ADDITIONAL
JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT,
METROPOLITIAN AREA, BENGALURU, (SCCH.NO.8),
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
3
JUDGMENT
In this appeal, the claimant challenges the judgment and award dated 22.09.2009 made by the M.A.C.T. Bengaluru, allowing his M.V.C.No.703/2009, whereby a compensation of Rs.3,51,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. has been awarded. Challenge is founded on the ground of inadequacy of compensation.
2. The brief facts of the case are that:
a) On 12.12.2008 at about 1.15 p.m. one Mr. Manjunath, who was driving a scooter bearing Registration No.CAZ-4234 near Wheel and Axel Factory, D.B.Road, Bengaluru was dashed by a B.M.T.C. bus bearing Registration No.KA-01-FA-987 due to rash and negligent driving. Consequently, the rider of the scooter sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to the same despite medical treatement at NIMHANS, Bengaluru. The L.Rs. of the deceased had filed the claim petition in M.V.C.No.703/2009 which was opposed by the respondent by filing the Written Statement.4
b) To prove their claim, the 2nd claimant got examined as PW-1 and that 10 documents came to be marked in her evidence as P-1 to P-10. These documents comprised of police papers and medical records, apart from other. From the side of respondents though none was examined, the insurance policy came to be marked as Ex.R-1. Looking to the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record both oral and documentary, the M.A.C.T. has entered the impugned judgment and award.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants- appellants vehemently argues that the notional income chart operated by the Lok Adalat for the said period itself shows the notional income to be Rs.4,500/- to R.5,000/- irrespective of the occupation of the deceased and therefore the M.A.C.T. is not justified in taking Rs.3,000/- as the monthly wages of the deceased. The learned counsel also points out that in the cross-examination of PW-1, except suggesting that the deceased had no such income, nothing worthwhile has been elicited to discredit the version of the said witness and therefore he submits that 5 the Tribunal has fallen in error in ignoring the material evidence on record without assigning any reasons.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Tribunal has considered all aspects of the evidentiary material and only thereafter it has taken Rs.3,000/- to be the notional income of the deceased and that the Tribunal being a statutory adjudicatory body and having accumulated expertise in these matters, its findings are entitled to have due deference by this Court. The counsel further submits that, there being absolutely no material to substantiate the claim of notional income of Rs.4,500/- to Rs.5,000/-, this Court should be slow in upsetting the finding recorded by the Tribunal.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents. I have also gone through the original L.C.R., more particularly, the cross-examination of Smt. Rathnamma, PW-1. As rightly pointed out by the counsel for the appellants, the Tribunal is not justified in taking only 6 Rs.3,000/- as the notional income of the deceased when the evidence of PW-1 stands unimpeached as to the monthly income of the deceased. The claim for Rs.4,500/- to Rs.5,000/- is also adumberated by the notional income chart for the relevant year, namely 2008, more particularly, when the accident occurred on 12.12.2008. Therefore, I modify the finding of the Tribunal as to the quantum of notional monthly income and hold Rs.5,000/- p.m. to be the notional income.
6. With the above altered value, the enhanced compensation is worked out as under:
After deducting 1/3rd component, from notional income of Rs.5,000/-, the monthly income will be Rs.3,334/-. Hence enhanced compensation works out to be 3,334 X12 X14 = Rs.5,60,112/-. After discounting Rs.3,51,000/- the compensation already paid, the amount of enhanced compensation payable to the claimants is Rs.2,09,112/-.7
7. No other ground having been urged, this appeal partly succeeds; the impugned judgment and award are modified enhancing the compensation from Rs.3,51,000/- to Rs.5,60,112/-, leaving all other conditions intact. The differential of the enhanced compensation shall be paid with the same rate of interest.
Sd/-
JUDGE Snb/