Karnataka High Court
Regional Manager vs Smt Dimple @ Rashmi Sethi on 2 December, 2014
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, Ravi Malimath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
ON THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.L.MANJUNATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6311 OF 2014(MV)
BETWEEN:
Regional Manager
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Regional Office, #44/45, Leo
Shopping Complex, Residency
Road, Bangalore - 560 025
Policy issued by its Branch
Office at No.30/26, Above
Canara Bank, New Delhi. ...APPELLANT
(By Sri A.P.Abhinadan, Advocate for Sri A.N.Krishna
Swamy, Advocate)
AND:
1. Smt.Dimple @ Rashmi Sethi
2
W/o late Raman Sethi
Now aged about 36 years
2. Saloni Sethi
D/o late Raman Sethi,
Now aged about 8 years 5 months,
Since minor reptd. By natural guardian/
Mother the 1st respondent herein.
3. Smt.Usha Sethi
W/o Bhagwan Das Sethi
Now aged about 63 years
All R/at #29, Kalyan Nagar,
Moodalpalya, 3rd Main, Bangalore - 560 072
4. Mahinder Singh
S/o Kultran Singh, Major,
R/a WC 71, SGT Nagar,
New Delhi. ...RESPONDENTS
*****
This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act
against the judgment and award dated 06.02.2014
passed in MVC.No.312/2006 on the file of the XVIII
Additional Judge, Member, MACT, Court of Small
Causes, Bangalore, awarding a compensation of
Rs.46,11,520/- with interest @ 6% P.A. from the date of
petition till deposit.
This MFA coming on for orders this day, Ravi
Malimath J., delivered the following:-
3
JUDGMENT
The case of the claimant is that on 17.12.2005, at about 5.15 p.m., when the deceased was riding his motor cycle bearing registration no.KA-02-ED-3814, at Tumkur Road, CMTI Junction, RMC Yard, Bangalore, the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.KA01 8280, came from the same direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him. He fell down and sustained injuries and died on the way to the hospital. On a claim petition being filed by the parents, wife and children of the deceased under Section-166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.46,11,520/- along with interest.
2. Questioning the liability to satisfy the award as well as the excessive grant of compensation, the insurer has filed this appeal. On liability, it is contended that the driver of the vehicle did not possess a Fitness Certificate. In the absence of a Fitness Certificate, the 4 insurer cannot be held liable to satisfy the award. The Tribunal on relying on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Sri.N.Srinivasa Murthy and Others, in MFA No.6621/2006 (MV) C/w. MFA Crob. No.2304/2006 (MV), wherein it is held that a mere non-possessing of fitness certificate is not a reason to deny compensation to the claimant. Following the said judgment, it was held that the insurer is liable to satisfy the award. Under these circumstances, we do not find any merit in the contention that the absence of fitness certificate would absolve the insurer from satisfying the award. Hence, the said contention is rejected.
3. So far as the quantum is concerned, the deceased was said to be a Senior Technical Writer at Mind Tech (India) Limited, earning Rs.43,750/- per month. He was aged 31 years as on the date of the accident. Form-16, in terms of Exhibit-P15 was 5 considered in order to hold the notional income. On deducting the employment tax and tax deducted at source, the monthly income was held at Rs.23,810/-. Since he was aged 31 years of the accident, 50% was awarded towards future prospects holding his monthly income at Rs.35,751/- (Rs.23,810 + Rs.11,905). There were four dependents. However, his father died during the pendency of the petition. Hence, 1/3rd was deducted towards his personal expenses of the deceased. Since he was aged 31 years, the appropriate multiplier of '16' was adopted and a sum of R.45,71,520/- was awarded towards loss of dependency. On conventional heads, a sum of Rs.40,000/- was awarded.
4. We are of the considered view that the amounts as held by the Tribunal with regard to the monthly income, the future prospects and the multiplier is in tune with the facts and circumstances of the case. 6 We do not find any error that calls for interference. However, the amount awarded on the conventional heads would appear to be on the lower side. Hence, it cannot be said that the compensation awarded is excessive. Under these circumstances, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the well-considered order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. The amount in deposit is directed to be transmitted to the Tribunal for necessary orders.
5. Consequently, I.A.1/2014 filed seeking condonation of delay stands rejected Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE JJ