Karnataka High Court
Chaningaiah S/O.Ningaiah vs Mr K A Harish on 21 October, 2013
Bench: N.K.Patil, B.S.Indrakala
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2013
:PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. PATIL
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.S. INDRAKALA
MFA NO. 8605 OF 2010 (MV)
C/W
MFA NO. 4278/2009 (MV)
MFA NO. 8605 OF 2010 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. CHANINGAIAH S/O. NINGAIAH
AGED 56 YEARS
R/AT SATHNUR VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI,
MAGADI TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT,
NOW AT NO.258/1,
2ND CROSS, SINGASANDRA, HOSUR
MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-68
2. INDRAMMA W/O.CHANINGAIAH
AGED 51 YEARS
R/AT SATHNUR VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DIST,
NOW AT NO.258/1,
2ND CROSS, SINGASANDRA, HOSUR
MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-68
2
3. MANJUNATH S/O.CHANINGAIAH
AGED 28 YEARS
R/AT SATHNUR VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI,
MAGADI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DIST,
NOW AT NO.258/1, 2ND CROSS,
SINGASANDRA, HOSUR MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE-68
4. LEELAVATHY W/O.SHANTHAKUMAR
AGED 26 YEARS
R/AT SATHNUR VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI,
MAGADI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DIST,
NOW AT NO.258/1, 2ND CROSS,
SINGASANDRA, HOSUR MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE-68
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI H C SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. MR K A HARISH S/O. NOT KNOWN
AGE MAJOR, NO.680, 4TH CROSS
MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT,
BANGALORE-86
2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD
D O XII, JAYALAKSHMI MANSION
2ND FLOOR, NO.1001/56,
DR RAJKUMR ROAD, IV BLOCK,
RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-01
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. HARINI SHIVANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1-
SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
3
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:09.12.2008 PASSED IN MVC NO.5829/2007 ON
THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL JUDGE, (SCCH-7)
MEMBER MACT-7, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION
FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
MFA NO. 4278/2009 (MV)
BETWEEN:
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD
DO-XII, JAYALAKSHMI MANSION
2ND FLOOR, NO.1001/56,
DR RAJKUMAR ROAD, IV BLOCK,
RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE
NOW REPRESENTED BY
THE MANAGER,
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.44/45,
LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX,
RESIDENCY ROAD, BANGALORE
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. HARINI SHIVANANDA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SRI CHANINGAIAH S/O. NINGAIAH
AGED 56 YEARS
2. SMT. INDIRAMMA W/O.CHANINGAIAH
AGED 51 YEARS
3. MANJUNATH S/O.CHANINGAIAH
AGED 28 YEARS
4
4. LEELAVATHY W/O. SHANTHAKUMAR
AGED 26 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT SATHNUR VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI,
MAGADI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DIST,
NOW AT NO.258/1, 2ND CROSS,
SINGASANDRA, HOSUR MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 068
5. MR. K.A. HARISH,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
MAJOR, NO.680, 4TH CROSS,
MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT,
BANGALORE-560 086
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI H C SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO 4; R5-
SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:09.12.2008 PASSED IN MVC NO.5829/2007 ON
THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MEMBER
MACT-7, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE,
(SCCH-7) AWARDING A COMEPSNATION OF
RS.7,12,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 8% P.A., FROM THE
DATE OF PETITION TILL REALISATION.
THESE MFAs COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, N.K. PATIL, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
:J U D G M E N T:
These two appeals by the claimants and the insurer are directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 09.12.2008 passed in MVC 5 No.5829/2007 on the file of the IX Additional Judge and Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-7, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore (SCCH-7), (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal' for short), for enhancement of compensation and reduction of compensation, respectively.
2. The Tribunal by its judgment and award has awarded a sum of Rs.7,12,000/- under different heads with interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, as against the claim made by the claimants on account of the death of the deceased late Sri B.C. Boregowda, in the road traffic accident.
3. In brief, the facts of the case are:
The 1st and 2nd claimants are the parents and the 3rd and 4th appellants are the younger brother and sister of the deceased and they have filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation on account of the death of 6 the deceased in the road traffic accident, contending that, on 12.05.2007 at about 1.30 p.m., the deceased met with an accident when he was riding motor cycle bearing No. KA-51/J-5946 slowly, cautiously, observing traffic rules on Bangalore-Mangalore NH-48 road, due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle bearing No. KA-04/N- 1926 which came from opposite direction. Due to the impact he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Inpsite of best efforts the deceased died to the injuries sustained the accident.
4. It is the case of the appellants that, the deceased was aged about 34 years and hale and healthy at the time of accident and was working as a Senior Marketing Executive in a private limited company and earning Rs.6,137/- per month. Due to his untimely death, the parents have lost their committed son and they are deprived of seeing the future of their son and the younger brother and sister 7 have lost love and affection, inspiration and guidance in life. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and other material available on file, has allowed the claim petition in part and awarded the compensation of Rs.7,12,000/- under different heads with interest at 8% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal the claimants have presented the appeal in MFA No.8605/2010 for enhancement of compensation and the insurer has presented the appeal in MFA No. 4278/2009 contending that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side as it is disproportionate to the income of the deceased and therefore, it is liable to be reduced.
5. The submission of Sri H.C. Shivaramu, learned counsel appearing for the claimants at the 8 outset is that, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and it requires enhancement. To substantiate his contention he placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case (2009 ACJ 1298) and submits that, 50% towards future prospects is to be added to the income of the deceased, as the deceased was aged about 34 years and in a secured employment and further, the appropriate multiplier is on the basis of the age of the deceased. Therefore, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be modified by awarding reasonable compensation.
6. As against this, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurer inter alia contended and substantiated that, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side and it is disproportionate to the source of income of the deceased. Further, she submitted that the Tribunal has erred in deducting 1/3rd towards the personal 9 expenses of the deceased instead of deducting 50%, since the deceased was unmarried and therefore, the same cannot be sustained as per the law laid down in Sarla Verma's case. She further pointed out and vehemently submitted that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 8% is also on the higher side and the same is to be reduced to 6% by modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
7. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and on perusal of the material available on record, including the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the only point that arises for consideration is:
"Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for any interference for enhancement or reduction?"
10
8. It is not in dispute that the deceased died in the road traffic accident. Further it is not in dispute that, the appellants are none other than the parents and younger brother and sister of the deceased. The deceased was aged about 34 years and hale and healthy at the time of accident and by working as a Senior Marketing Executive he was drawing a salary of Rs.6,137/- per month as per Ex.P7-salary slip. The Tribunal after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence and considering the age, avocation, year of accident and number of dependents has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.6,137/- p.m. as per Ex.P7-salary slip and by adding the future prospects to it, assessed his income at Rs.7,000/- per month instead of adding 50% in the light of the judgment of Apex Court as stated supra, since, as on the date of passing of the Judgment, there was no benefit of the said Apex Court judgment and out of Rs.7,000/- deducted 1/3rd towards the personal 11 expenses of the deceased and awarded loss of dependency at Rs.6,72,000/- which is just and reasonable and we do not find any reason to interfere with the said judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. Insofar as, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the insurer regarding the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 8% is concerned, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case it is just and proper and we do not find any good ground to reduce the same to 6%, as the deceased was aged about 34 years at the time of accident and he was the only hope, security and future of the claimants. Therefore, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the same. Accordingly, these two appeals filed by the claimants and the insurer are liable to be dismissed and accordingly they are dismissed as devoid of merit.
12
The amount in deposit by the insurer shall be transferred to the jurisdictional Tribunal forthwith.
Draw the award, accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Sbs*