Karnataka High Court
Smt R A Usha vs Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd on 25 August, 2014
Bench: N.K.Patil, B.Sreenivase Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2014
:PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.PATIL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.SREENIVASE GOWDA
M.F.A.No. 1425 OF 2012 (MV)
Between:
1. Smt. R.A. Usha,
W/o. Late Sri. K. Rajendran,
Aged about 38 years.
2. Mas. K.R. Rupesh Kumar,
S/o. Late Sri. K. Rajendran,
Aged about 18 years.
3. Mas. K.R. Vinod Kumar,
S/o. Late Sri. K. Rajendran,
Aged about 15 years.
4. Kum. M.R. Monisha,
D/o. Late Sri. K. Rajendran,
Aged about 13 years.
5. Smt. Manormani,
W/o. Late Sri. Kannan,
Aged about 67 years.
Appellant Nos.2, 3 & 4 are minors and are
Rep. by natural guardian their mother
Smt. R.A. Usha.
2
All are R/at. No.2,
4th Square Street,
Gangman Quarters,
Austin Town,
Bangalore-47.
...Appellants
(By Sri. Pradeep Naik.K, Advocate)
And :
1. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
5th Floor, Centenary Building, No.28,
M.G. Road, Bangalore-1.
(Cover note No.109000521288
Valid from 11/08/2009 to 10/08/2010)
2. Mr. Vijil,
S/o. Sukumaran,
Age: Major,
R/at. Chundanathuruthil House,
Thuravumkare Post,
Kanjoor, Ernakulam.
...Respondents
(By Sri. D.Vijay Kumar, Advocate for R1;
Notice to R2 dispensed with v/o. dated 15/07/2014)
This MFA is filed U/S 173(1) of MV Act against the
judgment and award dated:25/06/2011 passed in MVC
No.2431/2010 on the file of the 14th Additional Judge, Court
of Small Causes and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Bengaluru City (SCCH-10), partly allowing the claim petition
for compensation and seeking enhancement of
compensation.
This M.F.A. coming on for Further Orders this day,
N.K. PATIL J, delivered the following:
3
:J U D G M E N T:
This appeal by the appellants-claimants is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 25/06/2011 passed in MVC No.2431/2010, by the 14th Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru City (SCCH-
10), (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal' for short), for enhancement of compensation, on the ground that, a sum of `6,60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under different heads with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till payment, as against the claim `30,00,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased Sri. K. Rajendran, in the road traffic accident is inadequate.
2. In brief, the facts of the case are:
The appellants are the wife, children and mother of the deceased. They filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation against the respondents, on account of 4 the death of the deceased in the road traffic accident, contending that, on 19.1.2010 at about 1.30 p.m. deceased was riding motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA.03.EX.157 on Madiwala Main Road on the left side of the road and when he came near Silk Board Down Ramp near Madiwala Bus stop, at that time, the driver of the Canter bearing Reg.No.KL.41.B.2922 came from Hosur towards Bangalore with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle of the deceased and caused the accident. Due to which, deceased fell down and the wheel of the canter ran on his head. Immediately, he was shifted to Victoria Hospital, but he died on the way to the hospital.
3. It is the further case of the appellants that, deceased was aged about 42 years, hale and healthy prior to the accident and Carpenter by profession and earning `20,000/- per month and looking after the welfare of the family by contributing his entire earnings 5 to the family. Due to his untimely death, the appellants, his wife, children and mother who were depending on him have suffered financial loss as they have lost their bread earner, apart from mental shock and agony.
4. 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 `6,60,000/- under different heads with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its payment.
5. Being dis- satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants have presented this appeal, for enhancement of compensation.
6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned counsel appearing for Insurer.
7. The submission of the learned counsel Sri. Pradeep Naik K, appearing for the appellants, at the 6 outset is that, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at `5,000/- per month is on the lower side and is liable to be enhanced. To substantiate the said submission, he submitted placing reliance on Exs.P19 to P23 that, deceased had obtained necessary training and was having expertise knowledge in the said field and worked for several institutions. Therefore, he submitted that, taking into consideration the age, occupation year of the accident and since the dependents are his wife, children and mother, his income may be reassessed at `10,000/- per month.. Further, he submits that, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards conventional heads and the rate of interest awarded at 6% p.a., is on the lower side and is liable to be enhanced. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified.
8. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the Insurer, inter-alia, contended and substantiated that the 7 impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file and therefore, it does not call for interference. However, after going through Exs.P19 to 23, 27 and 28 available in the original record, he fairly submitted that the income of the deceased may be reassessed at `7,000/- per month and after deducting 1/4th towards personal and living expenses, applying multiplier of '14', reasonable compensation may be awarded towards loss of dependency and conventional heads.
9. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties and after careful perusal of the original records available on file at threadbare, including the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the only point that arises for our consideration is:
Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?
10. The occurrence of the accident and the resultant death of the deceased are not in dispute. Further, it is not in dispute that deceased was aged 8 about 42 years, hale and healthy prior to the accident. It is the case of the appellants that, deceased was a Carpenter by profession, he has obtained training in Department of Employment and Training and doing carpentry work having his own contract and also working for private firms and institutions and an income tax assessee. To prove the same, appellants have produced National Apprenticeship certificate, Provisional national trade certificate, Carpenter training certificate, certificate issued by ITI, certificate issued by V.S.Sridhar Murthy Engineering contractor, certificate issued by G.Rajnarayan and experience certificate as per Exs.P19 to P24. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at `.5,000/- per month on the ground that, appellants have not produced cogent material to show the exact income of the deceased. Non production of the documents will not take away the legitimate entitlement of the appellants on account of the death of the deceased. Having regard to the age, 9 occupation and year of the accident, and also taking into consideration that he was the only earning member in the family and the dependants are his wife, children and mother and on account of his untimely death, appellant No.1 has lost her husband and appellant Nos. 2 to 4 are deprived of the love and affection, security and guidance of their father in their young age and mother has lost her son who was her future hopes and security, we re-assess his income at `8,000/- per month instead of `5,000/- per month as assessed by the Tribunal. Out of which, if 1/4th (`2,000/-) is deducted towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased, since there are five dependants, his net income comes to `6,000/- per month. The proper multiplier applicable is '14' since deceased was aged about 42 years in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 as rightly adopted by the Tribunal. Therefore, we re- determine the loss of dependency at `10,08,000/- (`6,000/- 10 x 12 x 14) instead of `6,30,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal and accordingly, it is awarded.
11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we award a sum of `50,000/- towards loss of consortium; `50,000/- towards loss of love and affection at the rate of `10,000/- each to the appellant Nos. 1 to 5, `25,000/- towards loss of estate and `25,000/- towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. In all, the appellants are entitled to a total compensation of `11,58,000/- instead of `6,60,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal.
12. Regarding rate of interest, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, 6% interest per annum awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side, since the accident is of the year 2010. In the light of the judgment of Apex Court and this Court we award interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the enhanced compensation instead of 6% awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, there would be an enhancement of 11 `4,98,000/- with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.
13. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 25/06/2011 passed in MVC No.2431/2010, by the 14th Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru City (SCCH-10), is hereby modified, awarding a sum of `4,98,000/- with interest at 8% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization, in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
The Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of `4,98,000/- with interest at 8% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and award.
Immediately on such deposit, out of the enhanced compensation of `4,98,000/-, a sum of `2,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be 12 invested in the Fixed Deposit, in the name of the appellant No.1, in any Nationalized or Scheduled or Grameena Bank, for a period of 10 years and renewable by another 10 years, with liberty reserved to the appellant No.1 to withdraw the interest accrued on it, periodically.
A sum of `50,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the Fixed Deposit, in the name of the appellant No.5, in any Nationalized or Scheduled or Grameena Bank, for a period of 5 years and renewable by another 3 years, with liberty reserved to the appellant No.5 to withdraw the interest accrued on it, periodically.
A sum of `50,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the Fixed Deposit, in the names of each of the appellant Nos. 2 to 4, in any Nationalized or Scheduled or Grameena bank, till they attain 30 years, with liberty reserved to the appellant No.1 to withdraw the interest accrued on it, periodically, for the 13 welfare of appellant Nos. 2 to 4 till they attain 21 years and thereafter, from 22 years to 30 years, they are at liberty to withdraw the interest accrued on it, periodically.
The remaining sum of `98,000/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of appellant No.1, wife of the deceased and appellant No.5, mother of the deceased, in equal proportion immediately.
Draw the award, accordingly.
SD/-
JUDGE SD/-
JUDGE tsn*