Karnataka High Court
Subba Devadiga @ Moily S/O Late Bogra ... vs Mr C Suresh Pai S/O Late C Ramesh Pai on 1 June, 2012
Author: B.Sreenivase Gowda
Bench: B.Sreenivase Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.SREENIVASE GOWDA
Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 1791 of 2009 (MV)
BETWEEN
1. SUBBA DEVADIGA @ MOILY,
S/O LATE BOGRA MOILY,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.
2. SMT. SUSHEELA,
W/O. SUBBA DEVADIGA @ MOILY,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
3. SMT. SHAMBHAVI,
W/O. GANESH,
AGED 26 YEARS.
4. M. HARISHCHANDRA,
S/O. SUBBA DEVADIGA @ MOILY,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT ALIKE HOUSE,
BADAGA BELLUR VILLAGE,
BANTWAL TALUK,
NOW RESIDING AT C/O. SANJEEVA MOILY,
NEAR DUGESHWARI TEMPLE, KELENJARU,
KUPPEPADAVU POST, MANGALORE TALUK.
... APPELLANTS
(By Sri. P. KARUNAKAR, ADV.)
AND
1. MR. C. SURESH PAI,
2
S/O. LATE C. RAMESH PAI,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/A. MAHALAXMI TRAVELS,
VAMADAPADAVU, BANTWAL TALUK - 574 211.
2. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BRANCH, II FLOOR, GANESH BUILDING,
B.C.ROAD, BANTWAL
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. LEXPLEXUS, ADV. FOR R.2,
R.1 SERVED)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 22.01.2009 PASSED
IN MVC NO.920/2007 ON THE FILE OF MEMBER, MACT-IV
& III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, DAKSHINA KANNADA,
MANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION
FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
This appeal coming on for Hearing, this day, the
Court, delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records of the Tribunal. 3
3. For the sake of convenience parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Tribunal.
4. As there is no dispute regarding death of the deceased Dinakar, in a road traffic accident occurred on 06-05-07 due to rash and negligent driving of bus bearing registration No. KA-19-B-7327 by its driver and liability of the Insurance Co., the only point that remains for my consideration in the appeal is:
Whether quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper or does it call for enhancement?
5. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the Judgement and award of the Tribunal, I am of the view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not just and proper, it is on the lower side and therefore it is deserved to be enhanced.
6. Deceased was a bachelor aged about 23 years at the time of his death in the accident. Claim petition is 4 filed by his parents, sister and brother seeking compensation under Sec. 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act. Claimants in support of their contention that deceased by working as a lineman in BSNL was earning Rs.3,300/- per month have examined father of the deceased as P.W.1 and have not produced any document establishing professional income of the deceased. Even otherwise, considering age of the deceased as 23 years at the time of his death and year of accident as 2007, his income is assessed at Rs.40,000/- which is the maximum income that can be taken in a claim petition under Sec. 163-A of MV Act. 1/3rd of his income deducted by the Tribunal towards his personal expenses and taking 2/3rd as his contribution to family is in accordance with Schedule II of MV Act. Regarding application of multiplier whether it is on the basis of the age of the deceased as per Schedule II or on the basis of age of younger parent, it is now settled by a Full Bench judgment of this Court, according to which multiplier in case of death of a bachelor has to be considered based on the age of the 5 younger parent. Mother was 42 years and multiplier applicable is `14'. So, loss of dependency works out to Rs.3,73,330/- (Rs.40,000/- x 2/3 x 14) and it is awarded as against Rs.2,64,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under this head.
7. Rs.2,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,500/- awarded towards loss of estate is as per Schedule II of MV Act.
8. Deceased after sustaining injuries was taken to Primary Health Centre, Bantwal and from there he was referred to a major hospital at Mangalore. Considering the distance and amount spent towards conveyance and other expenses, a sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards medical and incidental expenses.
9. Thus claimants are entitled for the following compensation:
1) Loss of dependency Rs.3,73,333/-
2) Towards conventional
heads Rs. 4,500/-
3) Medical expenses Rs. 10,000/-
----------------
Rs.3,87,833/-
6
Less compensation awarded
by the Tribunal Rs.2,68,500/-
Additional compensation comes to Rs.1,19,333/-
10. Accordingly the appeal is allowed in part and the Judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent stated herein above. The claimants are entitled for additional compensation of Rs.1,19,333/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation.
11. The Insurance Co. is directed to deposit the additional compensation amount with interest within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, from which, Rs.75,000/- with proportionate interest is ordered to be deposited in FD in the name of the second claimant - mother of the deceased, in any nationalised or scheduled Bank for a period of 6 years, renewable once in every two years, with a right of option for her to withdraw interest periodically and the remaining amount is ordered to be released in favour of claimants 1 and 2 in equal proportion. 7
No order as to costs.
SD/-
JUDGE mgn*