Karnataka High Court
Legal Manager vs R M Ranjit @ G N Ranjitha on 12 June, 2019
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K. Somashekar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. SOMASHEKAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3034/2015 (MV)
BETWEEN:
LEGAL MANAGER
ICICI LOMBARD GIC LTD.
# 89, II FLOOR, SVR COMPLEX
2ND FLOOR, MADIVALA MAIN ROAD
BANGALORE-68
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRADEEP B., ADV.)
AND
1. R M RANJIT @ G N RANJITHA
W/O LATE NANDISH G R
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
2. G N VIKAS
S/O LATE NANDISH G R
AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS
SINCE MINOR REP GY HIS MOTHER
AND NATURAL GUARDIAN
1ST RESPONDENT
3. G SAVITRAMMA
D/O LATE RAMANAGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT SORATUR VILLAGE
-2-
HONNALI TALUK
DAVANAGERE DIST
NOW R/AT KUDINEERAKATTE VILLAGE
HOLALKERE TALUK
4. SYED AWNER
S/O SYED UBEDULLA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/AT OPP. POLICE STATION
NAYAKANAHATTI VILLAGE
CHALLAKERE TALUK - 577522
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R. SHASHIDHAR, ADV. FOR R1-R3
NOTICE TO R4 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.2.2015 PASSED
IN MVC NO.477/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT, HOLALKERE, AWARDING A
COMPENSATION OF RS.20,05,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 8%
FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF
DEPOSIT IN THE TRIBUNAL.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
-3-
2. This appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 11.02.2015 passed by the Senior Civil Judge & Addl. MACT, Holalkere in MVC No.477/2013, whereby the Tribunal has awarded the compensation in a sum of Rs.20,05,000/- with interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
3. The factual matrix of the case is as under:
It is stated in the claim petition that on 08.06.2013 at about 6 p.m., when the deceased Nandisha G. R. was travelling in a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-17/EB-9624 from Soratur village of Honnali Taluk to Kudineerakatte Village of Holalkere Taluk, near Malladihally Cross, one SRE bus bearing registration No.KA-06/A-6269 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner hit the motor cycle. As a result of the accident, Nandisha fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over his body and he died on the spot. The -4- deceased was working as a Sales Executive and Stores In-charge at Mahanta Motors, Davangere. Apart from that he was doing agricultural work and also owns land in Sy.No.31/P1 measuring 5 acres 15 guntas at Soratur Village. According to the claimants he earned a sum of Rs.40,000/- p.m. Due to the death of the deceased, the claimants namely his wife, son and mother, preferred a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking suitable compensation.
4. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 before the Tribunal appeared through their counsel and filed detailed objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. They contended that there is no negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle. Urging these grounds, they sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
5. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed the issues. On behalf of the -5- claimants, the claimant No.1 examined herself as PW-1 and got examined the employer of the deceased, one Mr. Niranjanakumar as PW-2 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P17. But the respondents have not adduced any evidence and have not marked any documents in support of their case.
6. On evaluating the entire oral and documentary evidence placed on record, Tribunal awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.20,05,000/- with interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant - Insurance Company is before this Court challenging the impugned judgment and award.
7. In this appeal learned counsel for the appellant has taken me through the evidence of PW-1, R. M. Ranjitha @ G. N. Ranjitha, said to be the wife of deceased and the evidence of PW-2. The learned Tribunal has held the income of the deceased in a sum -6- of Rs.15,000/- p.m. Learned counsel for appellant has contended that the said income is found to be on the higher side. He has further contended that PW-2 being the employer of the deceased, has not maintained the wage register relating to the deceased, but the statement of accounts indicates that they have paid Rs.15,000/- p.m. as salary to the deceased. Therefore he contended that on these grounds, the income of the deceased is required to be reduced.
Learned counsel for appellant further contends that the interest awarded by the learned Tribunal at 8% p.a., is also on the higher side. In fact, the claimants have not made out any special case to grant higher rate of interest. Therefore this aspect is also required to be intervened and rate of interest be reduced to 6% from 8%. On these grounds learned counsel for appellant/Insurance Company seeks for intervention of -7- the impugned judgment and award rendered by the learned Tribunal.
8. Per contra, Sri. R. Shashidhar, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3, contends that PW-1 being a widow, has the responsibility of looking after her son who is aged 10 years and the mother of the deceased. Due to the untimely death of the deceased, there has been no source of income to eke out their livelihood. Learned Tribunal has considered the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 and the documents produced at Exs.P1 to P17 and has awarded a just compensation of Rs.20,05,000/- with interest at 8% p.a. Therefore he seeks for dismissal of the appeal.
9. In the context of the contentions taken by Sri. Pradeep, learned counsel for appellant, it is relevant to state that there is no dispute about the death of the deceased in the alleged accident. Ex.P1 is the copy of the FIR and complaint, Ex.P2 is the spot mahazar, -8- Ex.P3 is the inquest mahazar, Ex.P4 is the PM report, Ex.P5 is the IMV report, Ex.P7 is the salary certificate issued by the employer of the deceased. These are the documentary evidence placed on record by the claimants in order to establish their case seeking suitable compensation. But there is no specific evidence adduced by PW-2 that the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs.15,000/- p.m. Hence the income of the deceased taken by the Tribunal is on the higher side and hence the same has to be intervened in this appeal. The accident occurred in the year 2013. Keeping in mind the guidelines relating to the notional income of the deceased, I am of the view that the income of the deceased is required to be assessed at Rs.10,000/- instead of Rs.15,000/- p.m. Future prospects at 40% is required to be considered keeping in view of the ratio of reliance rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. PRANAY SETHI & ORS. [AIR 2017 SC 5157]. Hence, -9- the compensation under the head loss of dependency needs to be worked out at Rs.14,000/- x 12 x 16 x 2/3 = Rs.17,92,000/- as against Rs.19,20,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal.
10. Insofar as filial consortium and parental consortium is concerned, placing reliance on MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. NANU RAM @ CHUHRU RAM & ORS. [2018 SCC ONLINE SC 1546], it is just and proper to award filial consortium to 2nd respondent namely G. N. Vikas, the son of deceased, in a sum of Rs.40,000/- and also to award parental consortium to 3rd respondent namely Smt. G. Savitramma, the mother of deceased, in a sum of Rs.40,000/-.
11. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the claimants are entitled for the following compensation:-
HEADS Rs.
Loss of dependency 17,92,000
Loss of spousal consortium 10,000
- 10 -
Loss of filial consortium 40,000
Loss of parental consortium 40,000
Loss of estate 30,000
Loss of love & affection 30,000
Funeral expenses 15,000
TOTAL 19,57,000
Compensation awarded by the 20,05,000
Tribunal
DIFFERENCE 48,000
12. The Tribunal has awarded the above
compensation with interest @ 8% p.a. However, keeping in view of the scope and object of Section 34 of CPC and also certain guidelines, it is required to reduce the interest to 6% from 8% p.a. In terms of the aforesaid reasons and findings, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is hereby allowed in-part.
(ii) Consequently the claimants/respondents are entitled for compensation in a sum of Rs.19,57,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. as
- 11 -
against Rs.20,05,000/- with interest @ 8% p.a., as awarded by the learned Tribunal.
(iii) Amount in deposit, if any, in this appeal shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith .
(iv) The apportionment and release of the award amount shall be in terms of the award passed by the Tribunal, on proper identification.
SD/-
JUDGE RD