Karnataka High Court
New India Assurance Co Ltd By Its Manager vs H M Ramakrishna S/O Huchaiah on 25 May, 2010
Bench: N.K.Patil, B.V.Nagarathna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 25"' DAY OF MAY, 2010 N
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE N.K,PA;*._r-1;'
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICi<)__B;V;NAG£;f§ATfiN;; 1 "
M.F.A.No. oF%2o%05%mma< k
BETWEEN: V' V' "
New India Assurance C0L;£;tc'{., b
By its Manager, V = ' "
No.65, j
Eshwaiii Cr§;InpieX,. 1 .
_
13anga,1m,.~.e:'--:~. 560 021} ..
Appellant
[By V ' Advocate]
AND'; * _
§_---I,M;. Ramakxishna
. 3 S,/« u..Hu_chaiah,
_ "A.géd'ab0u1: 56 years,
. "R/0,._Na',v'?.=i,
xsi 'r»1"g_.i.a» Road,
---- Muneshwara Block.
~. Mahalakshmi Layout,
Bangalore »~» 560 086.
;~5
Smt. Thimmamma,
ix)
W/o.H.M.Rarnakrishna.
Aged about 51 years.
R/0. --do--
3. A.L.Dharanendra,
S / o.B.G. Lakshmikanthaiah,
Aged Major,
R/o.No.2, 4"' Main, 2"" Stagef
Papaiah Garden,
A.D.Halli,
Bangalore --- 560 079. '
.;.--.Re_splonder1ts
(By Sri. K. Somashekar Reddy, Advocate forrll arid R-2;
Notice to R3 dispensed with V/o"dated"26.9.20G7..)
This MFA is filed we '1.',7j':3:r_.v1) or Act against the
judgment and award dated; '3_0..t12l2OV05jV passed in MVC
N0.2146/ 2003 on the file CO? Addli Judge, Court of
Small Causes arid Vl'\/IAECI', Bangalore City, SCCH-10.
awarding cpniperisa'tion..e..f Rs_.4=,.39',600/« with interest at 6%
pa. and _directfi_ng the Ap'p'ellanvt*he'rei'n to pay the same and
seeking .. lreduetioii :91" _ coI_I'rp_e1isatiVon:V
This Hearing this day, N.K.
PATIL J .2 delivered the "following:
Auubamswn
V ;,,,Thi's..is an Vapfieal filed by the Insurer questioning
compensation awarded by the learned
XIV__lAdc'titidiia1 Judge, Court of Small Causes and Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore City, Bangalore,
it [hereinafter referred to as ' Tribunal' for short), in the
/'
impugned judgment and award dated 3031
December.2005 passed in MVC N02146/2003.
2. The Tribunal by its judgment '
awarded a sum of Rs.4,39,000/t--""' with.Vat.'_j*50/to-b 2
per annum from the date of pet.biA:tiV0r.;A.A_tti(l1 theyiddate
deposit, as against the c1aiIr1v._di'..the eiaim-antsdddfdrdda eurn V
of Rs.6,00,000/--, on their son
Sri. HR. Ramesh, in Being
aggrieved by the Insurer
has for reduction of
the anaount awarded
by the h
_ Intbrief,'the of the case are:
Q Claimant """ "N0s.1 and 2 are the parents of the
Ramesh and they have filed a claim
petitionybefiire the Tribunal under section 163--A of the
Claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-, on
aecotint of the death of the deceased in the road traffic
/
accident, contending that, at about 8.30 a.m., on
7.2.2003, the deceased was moving on his bicycle on KHB Road, Basaveshwaranagar, Bangalore, _ time, the driver of the water .
No.KA.O2.B.i212 drove the same_ in-"V'a""~::lras'l*1 negligent manner and dashed deceased, due to which, he.__s'ustain"cd in_jur_ies_:'"all "over i the body. Immediately, he xwasgvshiftedlto=the..'§hospital and inspite of giving succumbed to the injuries V' further case of the claimantsv aged about 21 years, hale andVlhea1'thVy*k as Apprentice trainee in M/s, . EM Ltd., and getting the monthly nfiorelthlan Rs.2,500/ per month. The said come up for consideration before the Tribunal. Tribunal after assessing the oral and documentary evidence and other material available on it allowed the clai etition in part and awarded the compensation of Rs.4,39,600/-- under different heads with interest at 6% pa, from the date of. till the date of its deposit. Being . judgment and award, the Insurer has nu appeal, for reduction of corr1pen'sat§._on:, on _the that, the compensation awarded hy__ the is " ' excessive
4. We have heard: for the Insurer
5. canvassed by the learned cotrnsvel that, the Tribunal has committed- an the income of the deceased /iidper month for calculating the co'in_f)ehsation towards loss of dependency, contrary to the.' Certificate which shows that deceased was the stipend of Rs.1,090/«per month. Ftirtherfi learned counsel for the Insurer submitted it the age of the father of the deceased has to be / considered for adopting the appropriate Multiplier, in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Singh and another Vs. Satbir Singkrand another reported in 2008 SCCL.COM.69. submitted that the impugned judgment l liable to be modified by compensation awarded by tide-f.I'ribun_al. . 6. As against this, l4e'aVr1:ed for the claimants, inter--alia, aIid'.su~bjmitted that, the Tribunal on properv'.VVeonsideration_ the material availablemqoni just and reasonable compensation heads and therefore, it does not call for' interference by this Court.
" After careful consideration of the submissions counsel for both the parties, the only point that_arises for our consideration is:
up _ Whether the compensation awarded by V "«-the Tribunal is excessive and it is liable to be reduced?' Z
8. After critical evaluation of the original.
available on file, including the impugned * award passed by the Tribunal, '.vofd_'_jthe.V nu accident and the resultant deathltof deceased.' said accident are not in dvitspute. "The-._TriBuVnai xdhas '' assessed the income o§v.theg..deoé_ased_.'at' - per month and the same on the accident was occurred. the case of the claimants aged about 21 years, workingmvasii::§fApf§rentice_"V"Trainee in M/s. EM. E1ectronics- H getting the stipend of Rs.1g.,O.90/}a"per~rfionthddand he was also doing part time ."-job*---- Va»-n'd '"earning'""some amount. Therefore, we can of the deceased at Rs.3,000/--per rnonth.__>it_uisdtpertinent to note that, the Tribunal has a sum of Rs.3,/45,000/-- towards loss of 'eidependency, a sum of 334,000/»-- under conventional heads, a sum of Rs.60,000/-- towards medical expenses and in ail, a sum of Rs.4,39,600/-. Even if the income of the deceased is taken at Rs.3,000/--per month:,:"'»the loss of dependency comes to Rs.6,48,000/_--_;"sii1ce._:the petition is filed under section i63--A of of which, if 1/3" is deducted, Rs.4,32,000/--. To that, if a'su1fn oi'Rs.4,50Ql'/'..~' padded under conventional heads,___4_l:th:e _tota;1"«.co'mpensation comes to Rs.4,36,50(v)'/if The amount is only Rs.2,50()/-. Th¢;~e1for§_i.~w§.. ,dfgvr1o't_linf(i good grounds to interfere" judgment and award passedllbyl the . é Plowever, "sol".far as the submission of the '' V'~..,]e3ii'ti§d-r.,;;o'u.nsel Aforlllthe Insurer that! the Tribunal has s._.evr.r;edi' " the income of the deceased at Rs;'-2,4QiJ~,/_-Cper month, contra to the Ex.P8»saia __ . FY TY certificate and the age of the father of the deceased has considered for adopting appropriate Multiplier as %/ per the law laid down by the Apex Court in Ramesh Singh's Case as stated supra. are Concerned, submissions will not give any assistance tQ-'they A the Insurer and therefore. they are rejeeted,» RV' find any good grounds to inteivferkaih judgment and award passedb'y.._t;he
10. For the foregoing flappeal filed by the Insurer is liable tel ._/devoid of merits and accordingly; is V' 2 ' The S'£al;1,1t0I:S;' lnsurance Company shall the concerned Tribunal forthwith. ., x A i sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE L Vtsyrfl'