Karnataka High Court
Smt Chikkeeramma vs M/S Emri Karnataka District on 29 August, 2018
Bench: Raghvendra S.Chauhan, H T Narendra Prasad
1
`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
M. F. A. NO.2076/2015 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. CHIKKEERAMMA
W/O. LATE ANKAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS.
2. SMT. KAMALA L.
W/O. LATE RAMALINGU,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.
3. MS. VEENA A. R.
D/O. LATE RAMALINGU,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.13, SYNDICATE BANK COLONY,
7TH MAIN, 3RD CROSS, BSK 3RD STAGE,
BANGALORE-85.
4. MS. VINUTHA A. R.
D/O. LATE RAMALINGU,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS.
5. MS. VIDYASHREE
D/O. LATE RAMALINGU,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS.
PETITIONER NO.1, 2, 4 AND 5 ARE
RESIDING AT CHIKA ANAMANAHALLI VILLAGE,
KALLAHALLI POST,
2
KANAKAPURA TALUK-562 117,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI M. L. GOWDA, ADV.,
M/S. M. L. GOWDA & ASSOCIATES)
AND:
1. M/S. EMRI KARNATAKA DISTRICT
HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE OFFICER,
RAMANAGARA,
TOWN TALUK AND DISTRICT.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NO.25, SHANKARANARAYANA BUILDING,
M. G. ROAD, BANGALORE DISITRICT-560 001,
3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE CRESENT COURT,
CHIKMAGALUR.
4. SRI LAL AHMED
S/O. MAQBAL,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
RESIDING AT HUNASAGI VILLAGE,
SURAPURA TALUK,
YADAGIRI DISTRICT.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI L. SREEKANTA RAO, ADV. FOR R-2;
R-1,R-3 & R-4 IS NOTICE DISPENSED WITH
VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 21.08.2015)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.01.2015 PASSED
IN MVC NO.2040/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE XX ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSE JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
3
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Having lost the sole bread earner of the family, Mr. Ramalingu, in a vehicular accident, and having been granted a compensation of merely Rs.11,40,000/-, along with an interest at the rate of 8% per annum, from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization, the appellants have challenged the award dated 21.01.2015, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 20th Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore, (SCCH-22).
2. In a short compass, the facts of the case are that on 19.10.2012, at about 5.10 p.m., when Mr. Ramalingu, was driving from Kanakapura to Chikka Anamanahalli Village on his motorbike, on the National Highway No.209, suddenly, a Force Traveler Ambulance vehicle, bearing registration No.KA- 42-G-270, being driven rashly and negligently, collided with the motorbike from the backside. Due to the impact, Mr. Ramalingu fell; he sustained grievous injuries. 4 Immediately, he was rushed to the hospital. However, on the way to the hospital he succumbed to the injuries. Consequently, the appellants filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal. In order to establish their case, they examined a single witness, the daughter of the deceased, Ms. Veena. A. R, the appellant No.3, and submitted twenty-six documents. On the other hand, the Insurance Company neither examined any witness, nor submitted any document. After appreciating the evidence, the learned Tribunal has granted the compensation, and the interest, as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal for enhancement.
3. Mr. M. L. Gowda, the learned counsel for the appellants, has raised the following contentions before this Court:-
Firstly, the appellants had claimed that besides working as a Manager with Milk Producers' Co-operative Society, the deceased was also selling milk to the Co-operative Society. While assessing the income of the deceased, the learned 5 Tribunal has considered the salary certificates (Exs.P10 and P.11), in order to assess his income. But the learned Tribunal has ignored the passbooks, (Exs. P.14 and P.15), and the letter written by the Co-operative Society, (Ex.P.26), revealing the amount of income earned by the deceased by selling milk. Therefore, the assessment of income of the deceased is highly misplaced.
Secondly, relying on the case of SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS -V- DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER (AIR 2009 SC 3104), the learned counsel has pleaded that since the deceased had left five dependents, only 1/4th of his income should have been taken as personal expenses of the deceased. Instead, the learned Tribunal has taken 1/3rd of the income of deceased as his personal expenses. Therefore, considering these two facts, "the loss of dependency" needs to be re-calculated by this Court.
Thirdly, relying on the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED -v- PRANAY SETHI & ORS. (AIR 2017 6 SC 5157), the learned counsel has pleaded that the widow, Smt. Kamala. L, appellant No.2, would be entitled to "the loss of consortium" to the tune of Rs.40,000/-. However, the learned Tribunal has granted merely Rs.10,000/- for "the loss of consortium". Therefore, the compensation under the said category needs to be enhanced from Rs.10,000 to Rs.40,000/-
Fourthly, again relying on the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the learned counsel has pleaded that the appellants were entitled to receive a compensation of Rs.15,000/- for "the funeral expenses". However, the learned Tribunal has granted merely Rs.10,000/- for the said category. Hence, the compensation needs to be increased from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- for the said category.
Fifthly, again relying on the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the learned counsel has pleaded that since the appellants have lost a family member, they would be entitled to a compensation under the category of "Loss of Estate". Yet, the learned Tribunal has not granted any compensation for 7 the said category. Therefore, the appellants would be entitled to receive Rs.15,000/- for "the loss of Estate".
Sixthly, relying on the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), once more, the learned counsel has pleaded that the learned Tribunal has failed to take "the loss of future prospects" into account while calculating the loss of dependency. According to the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the appellants would be entitled to receive 10% of the income of the deceased while calculating the "loss of future prospects". Therefore, the loss of dependency" needs to be recalculated by this Court.
Lastly, despite the fact that the aged mother and three daughters, the youngest of them being nineteen years old, have lost the love and affection of the deceased, still the learned Tribunal has granted a miserly sum of Rs.40,000/- to the appellant Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5. Thus, each one of them has received merely Rs.10,000/- for the loss of love and affection suffered by them. Hence, the compensation in the said category should be enhanced by this Court.
8
4. Mr. L. Sreekanta Rao, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, has pleaded that, firstly the appellants were not justified in claiming that the income earned by the deceased by selling milk has been ignored unjustifiably by the learned Tribunal while assessing the total income earned by the deceased. According to the learned counsel although the passbooks issued by the Co-operative Societies (Exs. P.14 and P.15), were submitted by the claimants - appellants, the contents of the passbooks, (Exs.P.14 and P.15), do not reveal the rate at which the milk was sold by the deceased to the Co- operative Society. The passbooks merely record the quantity of milk sold, but without mentioning the rates. Therefore, it is difficult to infer the amount the deceased would have earned by selling the milk. Moreover, the authorized person who has made the entries in the passbooks has not even been examined as a witness. Therefore, the contents of the passbook have not been proven. Furthermore, the letter issued by the Co-operative Society, (Ex.P.26), merely states 9 that the deceased was selling the milk to the Co-operative Society, but does not reveal the rate at which the milk was being sold. Hence, there is no cogent evidence to establish the amount of money earned by the deceased by selling the milk. Thus, the learned Tribunal was justified in ignoring Exs. P.14, P.15, and P.26, and in excluding the "income" allegedly earned by the deceased by selling milk.
However, as far as the other contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants are concerned, Mr. L. Sreekanta Rao, has frankly conceded, and in the opinion of this Court rightly so, that the appellants would be entitled to receive enhanced compensation for the category of "loss of consortium", "funeral expenses", "loss of estate" and for "the future prospects". He has further conceded that even the personal expenses of the deceased should have been calculated at 1/4th, since he had left five dependents, rather than 1/3rd as taken by the learned Tribunal. However, on the issue of compensation payable in the category of "loss of love and affection", the learned counsel pleads that sufficient 10 amount has been paid, since a compensation is not meant to be a bonanza, but is meant only to be a reasonable one. According to the learned counsel, the compensation of Rs.40,000/- to the four dependents is a reasonable amount. Thus the learned counsel has partly supported the impugned award.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the impugned award.
6. Although it is true that the appellant did submit the passbooks issued by the Co-operative Society, (Exs.P.14 & P.15), but the bare perusal of the passbooks clearly reveals that merely quantity of the milk supplied is mentioned in the passbooks. But the passbooks, (Exs. P.14 and P.15) do not reveal at what rate the milk was bought by the Co-operative Society. Moreover, the appellants have failed to examine any witness who has recorded the contents of the passbooks. Furthermore, the letter issued by the Co-operative Society, (Ex.P.26) also merely states that the deceased was supplying 11 milk to the Co-operative Society. But even the said letter does not mention the rate at which the milk was supplied by the deceased. Therefore, even the said letter does not reveal the amount earned by the deceased by selling the milk. Thus, there is no cogent evidence to reveal the amount earned by the deceased by selling milk to the co-operative society. Hence, the learned Tribunal was certainly justified in not relying upon Exs. P.14, 15, and 26, in order to calculate the income earned by the deceased. Since two salary certificates, (Exs. P.10 and P.11), had been furnished by the appellants the learned Tribunal was certainly justified in relying upon the said documentary evidence in order to assess the gross income, and the net income of the deceased. Thus, the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is clearly unacceptable.
7. In the case of Sarla Verma (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has already opined that if the deceased were to leave five dependents, then 1/4th of his income should have been taken as the personal expenses incurred by the 12 deceased upon himself. Therefore, the learned Tribunal is not justified in taking 1/3rd of the income as the personal expenses of the deceased. Hence, this Court takes 1/4th of his income as the personal expenses of the deceased.
8. In the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly opined that in case if the deceased were between the age of 50 to 60, 10% of his income should be taken as "loss of future prospects". Admittedly, Mr. Ramalingu, was 56 years at the time of his death. Thus, the learned Tribunal should have taken 10% of his income for calculating "the loss of future prospects". Hence, "the loss of dependency" needs to be recalculated as under:
Monthly income - 15,000/-
Add: 10% towards future prospects - 1,500/-
Total - 16,500/-
Less: ¼ towards personal expenses - 4,125/-
Actual monthly income - 12,375/-
Multiplier - 9
Loss of dependency
12,375 x 12 x 9 - Rs.13,36,500/-
9. Likewise, in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the Apex Court has prescribed the maximum limit of 13 compensation payable for the three conventional heads, namely Rs.40,000/- for "loss of consortium", Rs.15000/- for "loss of estate", and Rs.15,000/- for "funeral expenses". However, in the present case, the learned Tribunal has granted merely Rs.10,000/- for "loss of consortium", and Rs.10,000/- for "funeral expenses", and has not granted a single penny for the "loss of estate" suffered by the appellants. Therefore, taking a cue from the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), this Court enhances the compensation in the category of "loss of consortium" from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.40,000/-, for "funeral expenses" from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/-, and grants the compensation of Rs.15,000/- for "the loss of estate" suffered by the appellants.
10. Lastly, the appellants consisted of the aged mother, and three daughters. Youngest of them was admittedly 19 years old when she lost her father. Loss of son for an aged mother, and loss of the father for the three daughters, can hardly be fulfilled by the monetary compensation. But nonetheless an endeavour has to be made 14 to fill the vacuum by granting sufficient and reasonable compensation to the appellants, who have lost love and affection of the deceased. A mere grant of Rs.40,000/- to four different appellants, i.e., merely Rs.10,000/- to each of the appellants is too little. Therefore, this Court enhances the compensation in the category of "loss of love and affection"
from Rs.40,000/- to Rs.80,000/-.
11. For the reasons stated above, this appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award dated 21.01.2015 is modified as under:
As awarded As awarded
Compensation under by the by this
different Heads Tribunal Court
(Rs.) (Rs.)
Loss of dependency 10,80,000/- 13,36,500/-
Loss of consortium 10,000/- 40,000/-
Funeral Expenses 10,000/- 15,000/-
Loss of estate - 15,000/-
Loss of love and affection 40,000/- 80,000/-
Total 11,40,000/- 14,86,500/-
15
The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount, along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. Once the amount is deposited with the Tribunal, the learned Tribunal shall disburse the amount to the claimants - appellants in accordance with the proportion directed by the learned Tribunal in the award dated 21.01.2015, after verifying their identities.
SD/-
JUDGE SD/-
JUDGE VP