Karnataka High Court
Sri K Panchaiah @ Panchaksharaiah vs Dr Sunil Kumar N K on 31 May, 2017
Author: B.Manohar
Bench: B.Manohar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY, 2017
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.MANOHAR
MFA.NO.211/2012 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.K.PANCHAIAH @ PANCHAKSHARAIAH,
S/O KALLAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT NO.71/2, NANJUNDAPPA LAYOUT,
MANGAMMANAPALYA,
BANGALORE - 68.
2. SMT.DRAKSHAYANAMMA
W/O SRI PANCHAIAH @ PANCHAKSHARAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT NO.71/2, NANJUNDAPPA LAYOUT,
MANGAMMANAPALYA,
BANGALORE - 68. ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.D.V.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV.)
AND:
1. DR SUNIL KUMAR.N.K
S/O N.K.TIPPESWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
3214, 11TH MAIN, 5TH CROSS
MCC B BLOCK,
DAVANAGERE.
2
2. M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
BRANCH OFFICE,
DAVANAGERE. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.A.N.KRISHNASWAMY, ADV. FOR R2,
R.1 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH V/O DTD: 10.03.2014)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:10.08.2011 PASSED
IN MVC NO.7359/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII
ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT-4, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -
JUDGMENT
Appellants are the claimants, being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the judgment and award dated 10-08-2011 made in MVC No.7359/2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short) filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. The appellants filed a claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act contending that son of the 3 claimants P.Veeresh was working as a Clerk in a Poultry Farm. On 08-08-2009, while he was proceeding in a Goods Ape Auto bearing Registration No.KA-16/A-651 from Cheelangi village to Hunisekatte village, due to the rash and negligent driving of the said Goods Auto, it turned turtle. As a result of which, the deceased Veeresh sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to the Government Hospital. However, he succumbed to injuries. In the claim petition it was contended that at the time of death, the deceased was aged about 16 years and studying in SSLC and earning Rs.3,000/- p.m. by doing part time supervisory work in the Poultry Farm. Hence, sought for compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-.
3. The insurance company defended the case by filing the written statement.
4. After trial, the Tribunal held that the deceased Veeresh died in the road traffic accident occurred on 08-08-2009 while he was traveling in the offending Goods Auto, the claimants 4 are none other than the father and mother of the deceased, hence they are entitled for compensation. With regard to quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal taking into consideration the age of the deceased as 12 years on the basis of the Post Mortem Report and also relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in MANJU DEVI AND ANOTHER v/s MUSAFIR PASWAN AND OTHER reported in 2005(1) TAC 609 (SC) awarded compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. The claimants being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal have filed this appeal.
5. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by Sri.D.V.Chandrashekhar, learned advocate appearing for the appellants and Sri.A.N.Krishna Swamy, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent-insurance company. Perused the judgment and award and oral and documentary evidence.
5
6. The claimants filed the claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, whereunder, they need not prove the negligence on the part of owner of the offending auto. The Tribunal, without appreciating the documents produced by the claimants proceeded to pass the judgment and award solely on the basis of the Post Mortem report, whereby the age of the deceased was mentioned as 12 years, which is contrary to law. The School record-Ex.P9 produced by the claimants clearly discloses that deceased was studying in SSLC and aged about 16 years. When the school record is made available, the age mentioned in post mortem report cannot be looked into. Under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal ought to have awarded the compensation reckoning the reasonable income of the deceased, deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenditure and applying the appropriate multiplier as provided under the Schedule-II of the Motor Vehicles Act.
6
7. In the instant case, the deceased was working as a Clerk in the Poultry Farm and earning Rs.3,000/- p.m. Hence, reckoning the income of the deceased at Rs.36,000/- p.a., deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenditure, which works out to Rs.24,000/- p.a., applying the multiplier 16, as he was aged between the age group of 16 to 20, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.3,84,000/- towards loss of dependency. They are also entitled to compensation of Rs.4,500/- towards conventional heads, in all, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.3,88,500/- as against Rs.2,25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.
8. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER The appeal is allowed. The judgment and award dated 10-08-2011 made in MVC No.7359/2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru is modified. The claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.3,88,500/- as 7 against Rs.2,25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Sd/-
JUDGE mpk/-*