Karnataka High Court
The New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Beena Radhakrishnan W/O Late ... on 10 August, 2012
Author: N.K.Patil
Bench: N.K. Patil
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2012,
: BEFORE :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. PATIL
M.F.A.NO.555 OF 2009 (MV)
Between:
The New India Assurance Co., Ltd.,
Palimar House, Nellikar Road,
Mangalore, Now rep. by its
Regional Manager,
New India Assurance Co., Ltd.,
Regional Office,
2-B, Unity Building Annexe,
P.Kalinga Rao Road,
Bangalore-27.
... Appellant
(By Shri. A.N.Krishna Swamy, Advocate)
And:
1. Beena Radhakrishnan,
W/o. Late Radhakrishnan Nair,
Now aged about 37 years.
2. Rashmi R. Krishnan,
D/o. Late Radhakrishnan Nair,
Now aged about 15 years.
3. Asha R Krishnan,
D/o. Late Radhakrishnan Nair,
Now aged about 13 years.
Respondent Nos.1 & 2 are minors,
Rep. by their natural guardian mother
Respondent No.1 above.
All are R/at. Malayil Meethal House,
Post Thodannur, Via Vadagara,
2
Kozhikode Dist,
Kerala-673 108.
4. Parvathi Amma,
W/o. Late Chandu Nair,
Now aged about 68 years,
Kezhakil House,
Chengarothe Post,
Via Peruvannamizhi,
Kozhikode Dist.
Kerala-673 528.
5. Ramanand Holla,
S/o.K.N.Holla, Adult,
M.G.Road, Kodiabail,
Mangalore-3.
6. Mr. John Misquith,
S/o. Bernard Misquith, Adult,
Padavinangady,
Murukodi House,
Post Konchady,
Mangalore-575 008.
... Respondents
(By Shri. Subhash Kowdichar, Advocate for R1 to R4;
R5 & R6 served)
****
This MFA is filed U/S 173(1) of MV Act, against the
Judgment and Award dated: 24/11/2008 passed in MVC No.
1453/2006 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Fast Track
Court, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mangalore,
D.K., awarding compensation of `6,02,000/-with the interest
at the rate of 6% P.A. from the date of the petition, till
realisation.
This MFA coming on for Hearing, this day, the Court
delivered the following:
3
JUDGMENT
This appeal by the Insurer is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 24th November 2008, passed in MVC No.1453/2006, by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mangalore, D.K., (for short, 'Tribunal'), for reduction of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of `6,02,000/- awarded in favour of the claimants as against their claim for `20.00 Lakhs, is excessive and on the higher side.
2. The facts in brief are that, claimant No.1 is the wife, claimant Nos.2 and 3 are the minor children and claimant No.4 is the mother of deceased Radhakrishnan Nair. They filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that at about 2:45 P.M, on 03-06-2006, when the deceased Radhakrishnan Nair was proceeding from Panambur side towards Surathkal side on NH-17 by riding his motor cycle bearing No.KA -19/S-661 along with the pillion rider, when they reached the place opposite Hotel Dwara at 4 Baikampady on the extreme left side of the road, the deceased met with an accident, on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of Bus bearing Registration No.KA-19/AE-9569. Due to the impact, the motor cycle was suddenly pushed forward and came in contact with the tipper lorry bearing KA-19/6147 which was stopped in front of the motor cycle, as a result of which, the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries and became unconscious. Immediately, he was shifted to UMC Hospital, Mangalore, where the Doctor after examination, declared him dead.
3. On account of the death of the deceased, the claimants filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of a sum of `20.00 lakhs against the driver, owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 24th November 2008. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file, after appreciation of the oral 5 and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition, awarding a sum of `6,02,000/- under different heads, with 6% interest per annum, from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the Insurer is in appeal before this Court, seeking substantial reduction of the same.
4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for Insurer and the learned counsel for claimants, for considerable length of time.
5. It is the case of the appellant Insurer that, the Tribunal grossly erred in assessing the income of the deceased at `5,000/- per month and awarding higher compensation towards loss of dependency. Therefore he submits that reasonable monthly income may be assessed and the total compensation may be reduced by modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for claimants submits that the compensation awarded by 6 Tribunal for the death of the deceased in the road traffic accident is after due appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on file and hence, interference in the same is not called for.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, I do not find any error or material irregularity as such committed by the Tribunal in awarding the compensation in favour of the claimants, on account of the untimely death of the deceased in the road traffic accident. Further, it is seen that, as per the claim petition, the deceased was aged about 46 years, but the wife of the deceased has categorically stated in cross examination that her husband was aged about 50 years. But, the Tribunal, after assessing the oral and documentary evidence available on file, has re-assessed the age of the deceased as 44 years. Further, it is stated that the deceased was working as loader and unloader in the godown of N.M.P.T. and earning a sum of `25,000/- per month. 7 But, in the absence of the documentary evidence, based on the age, avocation and the year of accident being 2006, and also the number of dependents, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at `5,000/- per month. The said assessment of income of the deceased by the Tribunal is just and proper having regard to the age, avocation, year of accident and the number of dependents and I accept the same. Further, it can be seen that the Tribunal, in fact, ought to have deducted 1/4th towards the personal expenses of the deceased, as the number of dependents are four and must have also adopted the multiplier of '14' instead of '13' as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case (2009 ACJ 1298). If the same is taken into consideration, it can be seen that the claimants would be entitled to much higher compensation. Further, in view of the judgment referred supra, the claimants are also, in fact, entitled to higher compensation towards conventional heads also. But, since the claimants have not approached this 8 Court seeking enhancement of compensation, I am of the considered view that the compensation awarded by Tribunal is just and proper, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, interference by this Court in the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal is not called for.
8. For the reasons stated above, the appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
The amount, if any, in deposit by the Insurer shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal, forthwith.
Office to draw award, accordingly.
SD/-
JUDGE BMV*