Karnataka High Court
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs B. Nagarjuna on 2 February, 2023
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
MFA No. 6253 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 6254 of 2017
MFA No. 7337 of 2017
MFA No. 7338 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6253 OF 2017 (MV-D)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6254 OF 2017 (MV-D)
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7337 OF 2017 (MV-D)
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7338 OF 2017 (MV-D)
IN MFA NO.6253/2017
BETWEEN:
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD
REGIONAL OFFICE,
NO.44/45 LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX
RESIDENCY ROAD CROSS, MG ROAD
Digitally signed by BENGALURU 560001.
PAVITHRA B REPRESENTED BY ITS BY ITS MANAGER
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S V HEGDE MULKHAND, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. B. NAGARJUNA
S/O LATE B ADHI @ ADHINARAYANA0
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
2. SMT A. NAGAVENI
D/O LATE B ADHI @ ADHINARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
3. A VASANTH
D/O LATE B ADHI @ ADHINARAYANA
-2-
MFA No. 6253 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 6254 of 2017
MFA No. 7337 of 2017
MFA No. 7338 of 2017
W/O RAMUDU K.,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
4. SMT A HEMALATHA
S/O LATE B ADHI @ ADHINARAYANA
W/O PAWAN KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/O NO.217, 5TH CROSS,
KUVEMPUNGAR,
FIRST STAGE, JALAHALLI EAST,
BENGALURU 560014.
5. VENKAPPA K S
S/O SHAMACHARI K
THANIKODU, THEKKUR POST,
SRINGERI TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT 577139.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHRIPAD V SHASTRI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4
(THROUGH VIDEO CONFERNCE), R5-NOTICE D/W V/O
DT:28/06/2018)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:05.04.2017 PASSED IN MVC
NO.4219/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE 13TH ADDITIONAL JUDGE,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MEMBER OF MACT,
BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.8,71,000/-
WITH INTEREST AT 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
REALIZATION.
IN MFA NO.6254/2017 :
BETWEEN:
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD
REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.44/45 LEO SHOPPING
COMPLEX
RESIDENCY ROAD CROSS, MG ROAD
BENGALURU 560001
-3-
MFA No. 6253 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 6254 of 2017
MFA No. 7337 of 2017
MFA No. 7338 of 2017
REPRESENTED BY ITS BY ITS MANAGER
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S V HEGDE MULKHAND, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. B. NAGARJUNA
S/O LATE B ADHI @ ADHINARAYANA0
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
2. SMT A. NAGAVENI
D/O LATE B ADHI @ ADHINARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
3. A VASANTH
D/O LATE B ADHI @ ADHINARAYANA
W/O RAMUDU K.,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
4. SMT A HEMALATHA
S/O LATE B ADHI @ ADHINARAYANA
W/O PAWAN KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/O NO.217, 5TH CROSS,
KUVEMPUNGAR,
FIRST STAGE, JALAHALLI EAST,
BENGALURU 560014.
5. VENKAPPA K S
S/O SHAMACHARI K
THANIKODU, THEKKUR POST,
SRINGERI TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT 577139.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHRIPAD V SHASTRI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4
(THROUGH VIDEO CONFERNCE), R5-SERVED)
MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:05.04.2017 PASSED IN MVC
NO.4218/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE 13TH ADDITIONAL JUDGE,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MEMBER OF MACT,
BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.19,13,086/-
-4-
MFA No. 6253 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 6254 of 2017
MFA No. 7337 of 2017
MFA No. 7338 of 2017
WITH INTEREST AT 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
REALIZATION.
IN MFA NO.7337/2017
BETWEEN:
1. B. NAGARJUNA
S/O. LATE B. ADHI @ ADHINARAYANA,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
2. A. NAGAVENI
D/O. B. ADHI @ ADHINARAYANA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
3. A. VASANTHA
D/O. B. ADHI @ ADHINARAYANA,
W/O. RAMUDU.K,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
4. SMT. HEMALATHA
D/O. B. ADHI @ ADHINARAYANA,
W/O. PAWAN KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.217,
5TH CROSS, KUVEMPU NAGAR I STAGE,
JALAHALLI EAST, BENGALURU-14.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SHRIPAD V SHASTRI , ADVOCATE (THROUGH VIDEO
CONFERENCE)
AND:
1. VENKATAPPA K. S.
S/O. SHAMACHARI. K,
THANIKODU,
THEKKUR POST,
SRINGERI TALUK,
CHIKAMANGALURU DISTRICT.
(RC OWNER OF CAR BEARING NO. KA-18-P2895)
-5-
MFA No. 6253 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 6254 of 2017
MFA No. 7337 of 2017
MFA No. 7338 of 2017
2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE, LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX,
RESIDENCY ROAD CROSS,
M.G. ROAD,
BENGALURU-01,
(IP NO. 472704/31/2015/7744 VALID FROM
26.12.2014 TO 25.12.2015)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S V HEGDE MULKHAND, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1-
NOTICE D/W V/O DT:22/11/18)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:05.04.2017 PASSED IN MVC
NO.4218/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MEMBER OF MACT,
BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO.7338/2017
BETWEEN:
1. B. NAGARJUNA
S/O. LATE B. ADHI @ ADHINARAYANA,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
2. A. NAGAVENI
D/O. B. ADHI @ ADHINARAYANA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
3. A. VASANTHA
D/O. B. ADHI @ ADHINARAYANA,
W/O. RAMUDU.K,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
4. SMT. HEMALATHA
D/O. B. ADHI @ ADHINARAYANA,
-6-
MFA No. 6253 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 6254 of 2017
MFA No. 7337 of 2017
MFA No. 7338 of 2017
W/O. PAWAN KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.217,
5TH CROSS, KUVEMPU NAGAR I STAGE,
JALAHALLI EAST,
BENGALURU-14.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SHRIPAD V SHASTRI , ADVOCATE (THROUGH VIDEO
CONFERENCE)
AND:
1. VENKATAPPA K. S.
S/O. SHAMACHARI. K,
THANIKODU,
THEKKUR POST,
SRINGERI TALUK,
CHIKAMANGALURU DISTRICT.
(RC OWNER OF CAR BEARING NO. KA-18-P2895)
2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE, LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX,
RESIDENCY ROAD CROSS,
M.G. ROAD,
BENGALURU-01,
(IP NO. 472704/31/2015/7744 VALID FROM
26.12.2014 TO 25.12.2015)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S V HEGDE MULKHAND, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1-NOTICE D/W V/O DT:22/11/18).
MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:05.04.2017 PASSED IN MVC
NO.4219/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES & MEMBER OF MACT, BENGALURU,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
-7-
MFA No. 6253 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 6254 of 2017
MFA No. 7337 of 2017
MFA No. 7338 of 2017
THESE APPEALs, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
MFA 6253/2017 (MVC NO.4219/2015) is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the impugned judgment and award dated 05.04.2017, passed in MVC No.4219/2015 on the file of the 13th Additional Judge, Court Of Small Causes And Member Of MACT, Bengaluru, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal' for brevity), praying to reduce the quantum of compensation awarded.
MFA NO.6254/2017 (MVC NO.4218/2015) is filed by the insurance company challenging the judgment and award dated 05.04.2017, passed in MVC No.4218/2015 passed by the Tribunal, praying to reduce the quantum of compensation awarded.
MFA NO.7337/2017 (MVC NO.4218/2015) is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 05.04.2017, passed in MVC No.4218/2015 passed by the -8- MFA No. 6253 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 6254 of 2017 MFA No. 7337 of 2017 MFA No. 7338 of 2017 Tribunal, seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded.
MFA NO.7338/2017 (MVC NO.4219/2015) is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 05.04.2017, passed in MVC No.4219/2015 passed by the Tribunal, seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded.
Brief facts:
2. On 18.07.2015 at about 2.45 p.m., the respective claimants of MVC No.4216, 4217/2015 and B.Adhi @ Adhinarayan S/o. Batappa and his wife by name Saraswathi w/o. B. Aadhi @ Adhinarayan were occupants of car bearing No.KA-02-AE-7077 and they were proceeding from Kukkesubramanya to Bengaluru on Bengaluru-Mangalore road and the said car driver by name Santhosh, driver of the car reached near Shanthigrama High School, Hassan Taluk and District. At that point of time, a car bearing registration No.KA-18-P-2895 came -9- MFA No. 6253 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 6254 of 2017 MFA No. 7337 of 2017 MFA No. 7338 of 2017 from opposite side in rash and negligent manner and dashed the car bearing No.KA-02/AE-7077. As a result, B.Aadhi @ Adhinarayana died on the spot and Saraswathi died during the course of the treatment of Mangala Hospital Hassan.
3. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on records.
4. The learned counsel for the insurance company Sri.S.V.Hegde Mulkhand submitted that in the present case claimant no.2 is only unmarried daughter and she alone is to be considered as dependent on the deceased and claimant no.1 is major son and is not dependant on the deceased. Therefore, in case of only one unmarried daughter surviving, then 50% of income ought to be deducted to grant compensation. Therefore, submitted when claimant No.1 is even though unmarried son, who is aged 24 years old, he has his own income. Hence, he cannot be strictly taken as dependant on the deceased. So
- 10 -MFA No. 6253 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 6254 of 2017 MFA No. 7337 of 2017 MFA No. 7338 of 2017
far as claimant No.2, who is unmarried daughter is concerned 50% of income is to be deducted.
5. Further, submitted that the quantum of compensation granted towards loss of dependency, loss of love and affection and loss of estate is on higher side. Further, submitted that the Travelling Allowance is to be deducted since that would not be considered as income of the deceased, but it was being given for enabling the deceased for coming from home to office and office to home. Therefore, the said amount can be deducted.
6. Further, submitted that the rate of interest granted @ 8% per annum is on higher side and the same is to be reduced to 6% per annum. Therefore, on all these ground prays to allow the appeals filed by the insurance company and reduce the quantum of compensation.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants-respondents submitted that the quantum of
- 11 -
MFA No. 6253 of 2017C/W MFA No. 6254 of 2017 MFA No. 7337 of 2017 MFA No. 7338 of 2017 compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on lesser side, and the income taken is also on lesser side. Therefore, prays for enhancement of the compensation. Further, submitted that the Tribunal has not added income towards 'loss of future prospects in life'. Therefore, prays to add the said income.
8. Further, submitted that even though the son is a major, but he is a student and unmarried. Hence, depending on the deceased. Therefore, considering the unmarried son and unmarried daughter, 1/3rd of income would be deducted but not 50% income towards 'living and personal expenses'. Further, submitted the quantum of compensation granted under various other heads are found to be just and proper. Therefore, requested to retain the same.
(i) MFA 6253/2017 AND MFA 7337/2017:
(MVC 4218/2015) :
9. The present claim petition in MVC No.4218/2015 is filed by the children of the deceased
- 12 -
MFA No. 6253 of 2017C/W MFA No. 6254 of 2017 MFA No. 7337 of 2017 MFA No. 7338 of 2017 father, namely, Aadhi @ B.Adhnarayan. It is proved from the evidence on record that the deceased was working as Safaiwala at Indian Air force, Yelahanka, Bengaluru and was in a permanent job of receiving salary of Rs.38,000/- per month. The deceased was 58 years old. There are four legal heirs - claimants. Claimant No.1 is unmarried son aged 25 years, claimant No.2, is unmarried daughter and claimant Nos.3 and 4 are the married daughters.
10. The learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that the son is a major aged 25 years and therefore he cannot be construed as depending on the deceased and the only dependant is unmarried daughter. Therefore, prays to deduct 50% of income, but not 1/3rd towards 'living and personal expenses'. He places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited And Others vs. Vinish Jain and Others1 (hereinafter referred to as 'Vinish Jain Case' for brevity) and also judgment of 1 (2018) 3 SCC 619
- 13 -
MFA No. 6253 of 2017C/W MFA No. 6254 of 2017 MFA No. 7337 of 2017 MFA No. 7338 of 2017 the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of B.V.Gopala & Another vs. Mehboob Pasha2 (hereinafter referred to as 'B.V. Gopala Case' for brevity)
11. In the present case, two claimants are married daughters, therefore they cannot be construed strictly as depending on the income of the deceased. But the remaining two claimants are the son and daughter, both are unmarried. Even though, the son is a major, but from the evidence, it is revealed that he is studying. It is the responsibility of the parents to perform marriage of the children and therefore it is pious obligation of the father and mother to perform marriage of the children whether it is son or daughter. Therefore, just because the age of the son is 25 years old, it cannot be said that he is not dependant. If in case, the son is aged about 30 years old or 35 years old, then it can be said that the son cannot be strictly construed as depending on the income of the parents, therefore not only unmarried daughter can be 2 MFA No.7318/2016, dated 23.10.2020
- 14 -
MFA No. 6253 of 2017C/W MFA No. 6254 of 2017 MFA No. 7337 of 2017 MFA No. 7338 of 2017 construed as legally dependant, but also the son. Therefore, 1/3rd income would be deducted towards 'personal and living expenses' of the deceased.
12. The facts in the case of B.V.Gopala's case are that the claimants are brothers. This makes difference in the present case and therefore the said judgment is not applicable in the present case. Further, in the case of Vinuta Jain the deceased was 78 years old and the claimants are two major sons and two grand-children, therefore considering the age of the deceased father strictly, it cannot be construed as those two sons are depending on the deceased 78 years old father. Thus, deducted 50% of income towards 'personal and living expenses'. Therefore, this makes difference in factual matrix between Vinisha Jain's case and in the present case. Therefore, considering the present case that there are two children proved to be depending on the deceased, therefore 1/3rd income would be deducted towards 'personal and living expenses' and not 50% of the income.
- 15 -
MFA No. 6253 of 2017C/W MFA No. 6254 of 2017 MFA No. 7337 of 2017 MFA No. 7338 of 2017 In this regard, the Tribunal has committed error by deducting 50% of income of the deceased.
13. The Tribunal held the monthly salary of the deceased as Rs.29,409/-, which is contrary to the record. Exhibit-P35A which are the totally six payslips and the employer is examined as PW-4. It is proved from the evidence of PW-4 as well as other documentary evidence produced, the deceased was working as Safaiwala in Indian Air Force, Yelahanka Bengaluru. The deceased died on 18.07.2015. There are six pay slips produced along with Income Tax assessment records. While considering the immediate preceding month salary, which is salary of June'2015 it is proved that the salary credited to the deceased is Rs.36,555/-, upon considering the income tax paid to the whole year on the earning of the salary that would be Rs.7,950/-. The deduction of income would be varied and at the end of financial year the deduction of income tax would be more compared to previous month. Therefore, what was total income tax deducted from the
- 16 -
MFA No. 6253 of 2017C/W MFA No. 6254 of 2017 MFA No. 7337 of 2017 MFA No. 7338 of 2017 salary is found to be Rs.662/- per month and this is to be deducted.
14. The request made by the learned counsel for the insurance company that traveling allowance of Rs.1,600/- can be deducted, cannot be accepted for the reason that would be given as income to the deceased, even though it is for traveling to home and office, but the principle of deduction of salary is made towards 'living and personal expenses' of the deceased and thus traveling expenses is included in the deduction of either 1/3rd income of the deceased. Therefore, where the principle of 1/3rd income is deducted towards 'living and personal expenses' then once again making deduction of Rs.1,600/- towards travelling allowances would amount to double deductions. Therefore, only the permissible deductions are income tax and professional tax. Accordingly, deducted therefore the net salary of the deceased would become Rs.35,893/- per month (Rs.36,555 - Rs.662). Therefore, the Tribunal has committed error in taking the
- 17 -
MFA No. 6253 of 2017C/W MFA No. 6254 of 2017 MFA No. 7337 of 2017 MFA No. 7338 of 2017 salary of the deceased as Rs.29,409/- per month and this is to be modified.
15. As per the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi3 10% of the income is added towards 'loss of future prospects in life' which is Rs.3,589/-. The appropriate multiplier applicable as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Smt.Sarla Verma & Others. Vs. Delhi Transport Corpn And Another4 is '9'. Therefore, the compensation under the head 'Loss Of Dependency along with Loss of Future Prospects in Life' is recalculated and quantified as follows:
Rs.35,893/- + 3,589 (10% of Rs.35,893) x 2/3 x 9 x 12 = Rs.28,42,704/-
Accordingly, Rs.28,42,704/- is granted 'Loss Of Dependency'.
3 (2017) 16 SCC 680 4 AIR 2009 SC 3104
- 18 -MFA No. 6253 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 6254 of 2017 MFA No. 7337 of 2017 MFA No. 7338 of 2017
16. The Tribunal has committed error in deducting compensation towards 'loss of love and affection' and 'loss of estate' and the same are modified. The 'loss of love and affection' and 'loss of consortium' are having more or less similar connotation. Therefore, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Magma General Insurance Co. Limited v. Nanu Ram & Others5 and in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi6, the four claimants are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each under the head 'Loss Of Consortium' along with 10% escalation. Accordingly, Rs.1,76,000/- (Rs.40,000 x 4 + 10% escalation) is awarded under the head 'Loss Of Consortium including Loss Of Love And Affection'.
17. Further, a compensation of Rs.30,000/- is awarded under the head 'Loss Of Estate And Funeral And Transportation', along with 10% escalation. 5 2018 ACJ 2782 6 (2017) 16 SCC 680
- 19 -
MFA No. 6253 of 2017C/W MFA No. 6254 of 2017 MFA No. 7337 of 2017 MFA No. 7338 of 2017 Accordingly, a sum of Rs.33,000/- (Rs.30,000 + 10% escalation) is awarded under the aforesaid heads.
18. The Tribunal has awarded interest at 8% per annum on the compensation; the same is scaled down to 6% per annum.
19. Thus, in all the appellants/claimants in MFA NO.7337/2017 (MVC NO.4218/2015) are entitled for enhanced compensation as follows:
Loss of Dependency : Rs. 28,42,704/-
35,893 + 3,589 x 2/3 x 9 x 12 Loss of Consortium : Rs. 1,76,000/- (Rs.40,000 x 4 + 10% escalation) Loss of Estate, Funeral, Obsequies : Rs. 33,000/- Ceremony and Conveyance TOTAL : Rs. 30,51,704/-
20. Therefore, the appellants-claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.30,51,704/- as against Rs.19,13,086/-. The appellants - claimants are entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.11,38,618/-
- 20 -
MFA No. 6253 of 2017C/W MFA No. 6254 of 2017 MFA No. 7337 of 2017 MFA No. 7338 of 2017 (Rs.30,51,704 - Rs.19,13,086) along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of total compensation within Eight Weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment.
(ii) MFA No.6254/2017 & MFA 7338/2017 :
(MVC No.4319/2015)
21. The present case is death of mother of the claimant. The deceased is wife of B. Aadhi died in the same accident. The mother was aged 48 years and was a homemaker. The year of accident is 2015, therefore, as per chart of notional income recognized by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, a sum of Rs.9,000/- is to be taken as notional monthly income of the deceased. As per the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
- 21 -MFA No. 6253 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 6254 of 2017 MFA No. 7337 of 2017 MFA No. 7338 of 2017
Pranay Sethi7 25% of the income is added towards 'loss of future prospects in life' which is Rs.2,250/-. Further, 1/3rd income is deducted towards 'living and personal expenses'. The appropriate multiplier applicable as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Smt.Sarla Verma & Others. Vs. Delhi Transport Corpn And Another8 is '13'. Therefore, the compensation under the head 'Loss Of Dependency along with Loss of Future Prospects in Life' is recalculated and quantified as follows:
Rs.9,000/- + 2,250 (25% of Rs.9,000) x 2/3 x 13 x 12 = Rs.11,70,000/-
Accordingly, Rs.11,70,000/- is granted 'Loss Of Dependency'.
22. The Tribunal has committed error in deducting compensation towards 'loss of love and affection' and 'loss of estate' and the same are modified. The 'loss of love and 7 (2017) 16 SCC 680 8 AIR 2009 SC 3104
- 22 -MFA No. 6253 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 6254 of 2017 MFA No. 7337 of 2017 MFA No. 7338 of 2017
affection' and 'loss of consortium' are having more or less similar connotation. Therefore, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Magma General Insurance Co. Limited v. Nanu Ram & Others9 and in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi10, the four claimants are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each under the head 'Loss Of Consortium' along with 10% escalation. Accordingly, Rs.1,76,000/- (Rs.40,000 x 4 + 10% escalation) is awarded under the head 'Loss Of Consortium including Loss Of Love And Affection'.
23. Further, a compensation of Rs.30,000/- is awarded under the head 'Loss Of Estate And Funeral And Transportation', along with 10% escalation. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.33,000/- (Rs.30,000 + 10% escalation) is awarded under the aforesaid heads. 9 2018 ACJ 2782 10 (2017) 16 SCC 680
- 23 -
MFA No. 6253 of 2017C/W MFA No. 6254 of 2017 MFA No. 7337 of 2017 MFA No. 7338 of 2017
24. The Tribunal has awarded interest at 8% per annum on the compensation; the same is scaled down to 6% per annum.
25. Thus, in all the appellants/claimants in MFA NO.7338/2017 (MVC NO.4219/2015) are entitled for enhanced compensation as follows:
Loss of Dependency : Rs. 11,70,000/-
Rs.9,000/- + 2,250 x 2/3 x 13 x 12 Loss of Consortium : Rs. 1,76,000/- (Rs.40,000 x 4 + 10% escalation) Loss of Estate, Funeral, Obsequies : Rs. 33,000/- Ceremony and Conveyance TOTAL : Rs. 13,79,000/-
26. Therefore, the appellants-claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.13,79,000/- as against Rs.8,71,000/-. The appellants - claimants are entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.5,08,000/-
(Rs.13,79,000 - Rs.8,71,000) along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization, in addition to what has been awarded by the
- 24 -
MFA No. 6253 of 2017C/W MFA No. 6254 of 2017 MFA No. 7337 of 2017 MFA No. 7338 of 2017 Tribunal. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of total compensation within Eight Weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment.
27. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER i. MFA No.6253/2017 and MFA No.6254/2017 filed by the insurance company are Allowed In Part.
ii. MFA NO.7337/2017 (MVC NO.4218/2015) filed by the claimants are Allowed in Part. The appellants - claimants are entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.11,38,618/- (Rs.30,51,704 - Rs.19,13,086) along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal. However, the appellant-claimant is not entitled
- 25 -MFA No. 6253 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 6254 of 2017 MFA No. 7337 of 2017 MFA No. 7338 of 2017 for interest for the delayed period of 62 days, in filing the appeal.
iii. MFA NO.7338/2017 (MVC NO.4319/2015) filed by the claimants are Allowed in Part. The appellants - claimants are entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.5,08,000/- (Rs.13,79,000 - Rs.8,71,000) along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal. However, the appellant-claimant is not entitled for interest for the delayed period of 62 days, in filing the appeal.
iv. The impugned judgment and award dated 05.04.2017, passed in MVC No.4218/2015 and MVC No.4219/2015 on the file of the 13th Additional Judge, Court Of Small Causes And Member Of MACT, Bengaluru is modified to the aforesaid extent.
- 26 -
MFA No. 6253 of 2017C/W MFA No. 6254 of 2017 MFA No. 7337 of 2017 MFA No. 7338 of 2017 v. Insurance company shall pay the compensation to the appellants/claimants.
vi. The amounts in deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith.
vii. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay.
viii. Draw award accordingly.
ix. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
JJ
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5