Karnataka High Court
Smt. Manjula W/O Kariyappa Hadapad vs Nonihal Singh Aneja S/O Harbhajan ... on 26 March, 2013
Author: B.Sreenivase Gowda
Bench: B.Sreenivase Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.SREENIVASE GOWDA
MFA No. 25648 OF 2012 (MV)
BETWEEN
1. SMT. MANJULA W/O KARIYAPPA HADAPAD,
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
2. SRI. DHARSHAN S/O KARIYAPPA HADAPAD,
AGE: 08 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
3. ABHISHEKA S/O KARIYAPPA HADAPAD,
AGE: 06 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
PETITIONERS 2 AND 3 ARE MINORS,
REP. BY THEIR NATURAL MOTHER AND MINOR
GUARDIAN PETITIONER NO. 1
4. SMT. MALLAVVA W/O NEELAPPA HADAPAD,
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: HOSUEHOLD WORK,
ALL ARE R/O ICHALAYALLAPUR, TQ: SAVANUR,
DIST: HAVERI.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. M.M. HIREMATH, ADV)
2
AND
1. NONIHAL SINGH ANEJA S/O HARBHAJAN SINGH,
DIRECTOR OF ANEJA CONSTRUCTIONS INDIA
PVT. LTD. R/O FLAT NO.405-406, 4TH FLOOR
PATHIMA RESIDENCY, NEAR MAKTAMPUR
POLICE STATION, BHARUCHA, GUJARATH STATE
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE,
BELLAD AND CO. 2ND FLOOR,
BANNIGIDA STOP, GOKUL ROAD,
HUBLI.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NAGARAJ C. KOLLOORI, ADV FOR R2
R1-NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)
MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 01-02-2012 PASSED IN MVC
NO.354/2010 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, HAVERI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
3
2. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the appeal is heard, admitted and disposed of finally.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Tribunal.
4. As there is no dispute regarding the death of the deceased in a road traffic accident occurred on 12.1.2010 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending tipper lorry bearing registration No.MP-09- KC-4525 by its driver and liability of the insurer of the offending vehicle, the only point that arises for my consideration in the appeal is:
"whether quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for enhancement?"4
5. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for parties and perusing the judgment and award of the Tribunal, I am of the view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not just and reasonable, it is on the lower side and hence it is required to be enhanced.
6. The deceased was aged about 34 years at the time of accident as evident from P.M. report Ex.P-
7. The claim petition is filed by wife, mother and two minor children of the deceased under Section 166 of MV Act seeking compensation. The claimants in support of their contention that the deceased was doing centering work and earning a sum of Rs.8,500/- per month have examined the wife of the deceased as PW-1 and owner of the deceased as PW-2 and produced salary certificate at Ex.P-9. PW-2 in his evidence has stated that he is a PWD contractor and the deceased was working under him and he was 5 paying salary of Rs.8,500/- per month to the deceased, but no documents is produced to show that he was a contractor and no wage register is produced to show that he was paying salary of Rs.8,500/- per month to the deceased. In the absence of proof of income, considering the age of the deceased as 34 years and year of accident as 2010, his income could be assessed at Rs.4,250/- per month. Further, 30% of the income of the deceased has to be added towards his future prospectus as per judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Santhosh Devi vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others reported in 2012 ACJ 1428. Then, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.5,525/- per month (4250 + 1275). Since, there are 4 dependent claimants, 1/4th of the income of the deceased has to be deducted towards his personal expenses and remaining 3/4th has to be taken towards his family contribution. Multiplier of "16" 6 has to be applied to the age group of the deceased. Therefore, the 'loss of dependency' works out to Rs.7,95,600/- (5,525 x 3/4 x 16 x 12) and it is awarded as against Rs.5,76,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
7. Further, Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards 'loss of consortium', Rs.10,000/- awarded towards 'loss of love and affection', Rs.10,000/- awarded towards 'loss of estate', Rs.10,000/- awarded towards 'funeral expenses' and Rs.5,000/- awarded towards 'transportation expenses' are just and proper and there is no scope for enhancement under these heads.
8. Thus, the claimants are entitled for the following compensation:-
HEADS Rs.
Loss of dependency 7,95,600
Consortium 10,000
7
Loss of love and affection 10,000
Loss of estate 10,000
Funeral expenses 10,000
Transportation expenses 5,000
TOTAL 8,40,600
LESS: Compensation awarded by the 6,21,000
Tribunal
BALANCE (Enhanced amount) 2,19,600
9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed-in-part. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent stated herein above. The claimants are entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.2,19,600/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation excluding interest for the delayed period of 211 days in filing the appeal.
10. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the additional compensation amount together with interest within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment excluding interest 8 for the delayed period of 211 days in filing the appeal. From which, Rs.50,000/- each with proportionate interest is ordered to be invested in fixed deposit in the names of claimants in any Nationalised Bank/Scheduled Bank/Post Office for a period of 6 years in respect of claimant No.1 & 4 and till the age of attaining majority in respect of claimant Nos.2 and 3 renewable from time to time and with a right of option for the claimant No.1 to withdraw interest periodically from her deposit as well as from the deposit of her children. Remaining amount with proportionate interest is ordered to be released in favour of the claimant Nos.1 and 4 in equal proportion.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE DM/-