Karnataka High Court
Smt Meera Ramu vs M/S United India Insurance Co Ltd on 6 October, 2009
Author: N.K.Patil
Bench: N.K.Patil
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
DATED Tms THE em DAY OF OCTOBER,
: PRESENT :
THE HOPPBLE MR. JUs'm;1«::_1\:.K_; "1i§TiL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE *Kx.N. '
M.F.A.NO.10760u OF: 2006 (am % f:
BETVVEEN: A. 3 L 2
1. Smt. Meera Rainu.
W/0. Late V€;11ka.tar§1mu, ' . _ .
2. "
S / Q} LateT"JTc1f1kt:¥;'ran_';u,« '
Aged about 28':3t¢arTs."~V._? .. '
Both are R/r). N0.V"\f§~34;,°'
Guru II Blfdaira, "
III.;C1"'os.S, Pipeline.
DJZa11e;3.hw<aram, Bangalore.
' " A .. Appellants
A EBy'_Sfi;'I{;"'{f§he{,ij1~:ii*ashekar Achar, Advocate)
A NYE) '
3 . _IV{/.E3V;~~'fiL;31'1itt3d India Insurance C0.Ltd.
VR/«o. No.2, I Floor.
V' 'Hosur Main Road,
Madivaia,
: Bangalore -- 560 068
x MFA coming
' K?N.Keshavanarayana, J.. delivered the following:
By its Branch Manager.
. Sri.C. Govindaraju,
R/0. No.543. 8"'- Cross,
9"" Main, I Stage.
Yeshwanthpura,
Bangalore. 560 022.
. M/ s. The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.
R/o. IML Building. .
No.221, Cubbonpet Road, ' V
N.R. Square,
Bangalore -- 2.
. Sri. S. Rajendra,
S/o. Late C.R. Shant__happa,_..__
R/o. Flat No.102. V A A
18"" Cross, RT. Nagaiy - '
Bangalore. 32.
Dt.17'.O8,2009: R3"-{;serveAd}..
*$*=i==l=
_'I_'his 1£2:~mis,,i2:e;i_1i)'sec 173 (1) of M.V Act against the
}ud_grz1ent _pand'""aw_ar.d dated: 11.05.2006, passed in
on the file of the VI S.C.J., Member,
Vofismall Causes, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore
allowing the claim petition for
compensatioén and seeking enhancement of compensation.
on for
%'
Hearing,
.. .. Respondents
{By sn:.B;¢.ssgahggégmaaé. »<\dx}§'éate for R1;
R2 <3: R4.» --~.1\£oticesdi.spensed'"with vide order
this day,
JUDGMENT
The appellants being the wife and sonvt~.o:f._,'_one Sri.Venkatara:mu, who died in the accident that occurred at about .4 ._]?4.M,*'.o'n" 'Au are in appeal before this Court, .
Compensation awarded l\/£.V.C.No.1292/2004.,
2. The appellants petition under Section 166" Act, seeking co1npensationg~._V one" Sri.Venkataran1u, the e,,eeuem: and father of the second'-. total Compensation of Rs.4_0.,0o,ooo[-an-teea1ie§, contending that the deceased, .---.,.,.,o;1Ctlt1e:,,,..,date offlthehaccident, while travelling in Car N o.KA-O 1 / N -5543 on Bangalore --
Mys,orev_ on account of rash and negligent driving the by its driver, the car dashed against the lorry came from opposite direction, as a result, the l Md-eceased died on the spot. According to the appellants, W the deceased was a retired Bank employee and after his retirement, he was working as a 'Supervisor7_f~i_n*-.. a printing press called "Screen Craft" on a ~ of Rs.7,000/- and on accou1__1t.._of l_-list" uh' appellants have been deprived of.the_'iincorne"
the deceased and he was th.e"'~only lbreadiof: the " L' family.
3. The claim by the owner and insurer of _:th_e the Car.
The V the oral and documyeritary the accident was solely due to of the Car by its driver.
fig. regardlto the facts and circumstances V' c'aese;'l'the took the monthly income of the 4V.i{sy.:€i,OOO/-- by rejecting the evidence of PW3 "rift"-rt to the employment of the deceased in "'*'Scyreen-Clraff'. By adopting the multiplier of '10', and r'aI'ter...li'Adeducting 1/ 3rd of the monthly income of .Rs.-4,000/-- towards the personal expenses of the w deceased, the Tribunal determined the loss of dependency at Rs.3,20,000/--. The Tribuna1£"----_aiso awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/--
Consortium, a sum of Rs.15,000/~--
expenses, obsequies and trans;-oortation._ of and a sum of Rs.10,000/--_ towards lossl Thus, the Tribunal awardeid.VV:."itotai of Rs.3,55,000/-- together 70/oxpéwr annum from the date of petitioijrtili date'..'payment. The insurer of the \i_vas"'di1"ected to satisfy the 5]. ' isaagttaitssiitisried with the quantum of compensation; 't1.ieA"'.aV1:di"1::>e11ar1ts have presented this aiia; dddd "contending that the Tribunal has 'a1f'x.e.rror in taking the monthly income of the deceased Aft{s.4,OOO/- though the evidence on record 'establishes that the deceased was getting more than.u5Rs.7,OOO/-- per month from his empioyment in the gs-rinting press. It is also contended that the Tribunal 55/ has erroneously rejected the testimony of PW 3 with regard to the employment of the deceased in,» the printing press "Screen Craft". It is also the Tribunal has not awarded any corr1pe11sationi V' towards loss of love and affection the condipensa'tion'. awarded under the other conventional heads the lower side and deserves enhanced
6. We have heard th_«e"l'e'arne\d"counsel appearing for the appellants as counsel appearing for re;spon'dents:{ finding of the TribunaI"ixfitlrj{f,1feg;5i;rd fltlie a_cti'olnable negligence is not challenged the of the offending vehicle. Th?:refo1i'6.A"'thé.. only point that arise for our . porisidetratron is. """
_ :.4"'E?i:/hether the appellants are entitled for « efahtzrtcarrient of compensation"
Ad:rr1i'tt'ed1y, the deceased had taken voluntary it it ' Vretirenient from the Bank, where he was working. It is
-- the case of the appellants that the deceased was getting any income by way of pension. However, it is the specific case of the appellants that, after retirement, the deceased was working in the printing press byririazgie "Screen Craft" owned by PW3 and was gettin§:g"sa.1'a:jr Rs.7,000/-- per month. The Tribunal has'v--rej_vectec1~,Vti3,,e v evidence of PW3 on the ground,' th_at.. evidence is produced to sh'ohvv--..that--' is' of the said concern and that tph_ef'd_ec»eased Vetnployed therein and he was j.-- per month.
Even accordingtop.the'evider3c'e.§3f "he is an income Tax as's'e'ss'ee,rV5. produced before the Tribune} sVubste,ijiti'at,eiA"that he is the proprietor or the ownerof the print--ing. press, "Screen Craft". Except the 3,,fiertificateiiiisaid to have been issued by PW8, produced on record to show that the dec-e_ase_ci* employed in "Screen Craft". In the :"absence.- ;of any supportive documentary evidence to est»ab'Iish the empioyment of the deceased with "Screen ~~Craft", after his retirement, in our considered 3, 1:
4 8
opinion, the Tribunal has rightly held that the appellants have failed to prove that the deceased was empioyed with "Screen Craft" on a monthly of Rs.7,0uO0/--. Nevertheless, the Tribunal income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/--. the fact that the deceased was a_vreti.red and was not getting any income by way of peiisvion, _}it is v reasonable to hold that he hadengagedhimseifiin some kind of employment _thatj_' lpiconid earn some additional income apaitfrovm'iotherincome to maintain himself" regard to the rich experience'-of as a Bank employee, it is reasonab1efl"to_:Vtai§e thefinotional income at Rs.4,500/-- .~.,ooc,pm;iood}no:atr:._1nst¢aa"or Rs.4,000/-- as taken by the " According to the evidence on record, the dec-e_ased*xyasl aged about 59 years, therefore, the proper works out to '9' and not 'IO' as adopted by Tlribunal. If 1/3rd is deducted from Rs.4,500/-- ...towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the loss of dependency Works out to Rs.3.000/~ per month and annual loss works out to Rs.36,000/-. By appropriate multiplier of '9', the total loss "
Works out to Rs.3,24.000/--.
8. The Tribunal '~ compensation of Rs.35,000/jiundef heads and they do not call iu1"1"t.c§_:rfe1"e'1i(:e;'l4
9. Thus, the app¢13la;<;ts .AA_'.ehtjtled for total compensation V as against Rs.3.5_S,60'o ,/21 théi'ribuna1. _ .10. xfiew.."of..ab0ve, the appeal is allowed in " efihancihflgmthe compensation to Rs.3,59,000/- "iu?;.$~...'3;~55,000/~ awarded by the Tribunal. The e11h.ane_ec'e.vlA.ieempensation of Rs.4,000/- shall carry :"interezst.----at 6% per annum from the date of petition till of payment.
10 The first respondent, the Insurer of the Car is directed to pay the enhanced eempensaticfiefisfith interest Within six weeks from the date of Copy of the judgment.