1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3770 OF 2017 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
SRI: RANGAPPA
S/O LATE GANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF NO.8,
RAAGIMAKALAHALLI VILLAGE,
CHIKKABALLAPURA TQ. AND DISTRICT.
AND ALSO RESIDENT OF
SADENAHALLI,
GOWDAGERE,
CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK AND DISTRICT.
PRESENTLY RESIDENT OF
K.GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE,
MYSORE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560084.
... APPELLANT
[BY SRI. R. LAKSHMANA, ADVOCATE (THROUGH VC)]
AND:
1. M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BY ITS MANAGER
REGIONAL OFFICE,
T.P.HUB, NO.18,
5TH AND 6TH FLOOR,
KRUSHI BHAVANA,
HUDSON CIRCLE,
2
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560009.
2. M/S. ADI BHASKAR MARKETING CO.,
BY ITS MANAGER,
NO.22, MUNIYAPPA COMPOUND,
PANTHARAPALYA,
MYSORE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560039.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R. JAIPRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NO.1;
SERVICE OF NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.2 IS
DISPENSED WITH VIDE COURT ORDER DATED
07.12.2017)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
06.06.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.2376/2014 ON THE FILE
OF THE XXI A.C.M.M. AND XXIII A.S.C.J., BENGALURU
(SCCH-25), ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (SCCH-25) (henceforth referred to as 3 'Tribunal') in terms of the Judgment and Award dated 06.06.2016 in MVC No.2376/2014.
2. The parties shall henceforth be referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The claim petition discloses that the claimant is a dependant and the legal representative of Gangappa who died on 13.02.2014. It is stated that on 29.11.2013, the said Gangappa was riding pillion on a TVS Scooty bearing registration No.KA-40-S-2892 on Chikkaballapura-Gowribidanur road. When he reached Bommenahalli Cross, the driver of a Maruthi Car bearing registration No.KA-41-P-2208 (hereinafter referred to as the 'offending vehicle') drove it in a rash and negligent manner and ended up dashing against the TVS scooty. As a result of the accident, Gangappa sustained serious injuries and was shifted to Government Hospital, Chikkaballapur and then to NIMHANS and thereafter to Victoria Hospital, where he 4 was treated as an inpatient and thereafter to Government Hospital, Chikkaballapur, where he was treated as an inpatient but succumbed to injuries on 13.02.2014. The claimant contended that he had spent a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for the treatment of the deceased. The claimant claimed that the deceased was a mason and was earning Rs.12,000/- per month and was contributing the entire amount to the family. The claimant claimed that he was entirely dependent on the deceased and claimed compensation by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- from the owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle.
4. The claim petition was contested by the insurer of the offending vehicle. The insurer denied the accident as well as the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. It however contended 5 that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid licence and therefore, it must be exonerated from paying any compensation. With these contentions, the claim petition was set down for trial.
5. Before the Tribunal, the claimant was examined as PW1 and a witness as PW2 who spoke about the negligence on the part of the driver of offending vehicle and marked documents as Exs.P1 to P17. The insurer did not lead any evidence and did not mark any document.
6. The Tribunal considered the fact that the deceased was 65 years old at the time of the accident and that the claimant did not place on record any proof of avocation of the deceased. Thus, the Tribunal considered the notional income of the deceased at a sum of Rs.7,000/- per month. The Tribunal noticed that the claimant was a major by age and there was no material to indicate that he was dependent on the 6 deceased and thus, deducted 50% of the notional income of the deceased towards his personal expenses and awarded the following compensation.
Heads under which Amount in
compensation awarded Rupees
Loss of estate 2,10,000
Funeral expenses 25,000
Transportation of dead body 10,000
Total 2,45,000
7. Feeling aggrieved by the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant has filed this appeal.
8. The learned counsel for the claimant - appellant submits that the Tribunal ought to have considered the notional income of the deceased at a sum of Rs.8,500/- per month as is done by this Court in the matters referred to Lok Adalath for settlement. He also contended that the Tribunal had committed an error in applying the multiplier of '5' instead of '7'. The learned counsel further contended that the deceased 7 underwent treatment at various hospitals which resulted in expenses to the claimant towards attendant charges. He therefore, contended that the award of compensation may be enhanced.
9. Per contra, the counsel for the insurer vehemently contended that the claimant was a 43 years old person and except his self serving statement that he was dependent on the deceased, there was no material to show that he was really dependent on the deceased. He therefore, contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper having regard to the fact that the deceased was 65 years old at the time of the accident and that he was not pursuing any known avocation. The learned counsel therefore supported the Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal.
10. It is not in dispute that the deceased suffered injuries in the accident and it is also not in dispute that the deceased was shifted from one hospital 8 to the another which must have involved substantial expenses towards transportation and attendant charges. Though this Court has accepted a sum of Rs.8,500/- per month as notional income in respect of the persons who are injured or who die in road accidents during the year 2013, having regard to the fact that the claimant was not dependent on the deceased, it is appropriate that the Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal considering the notional income of the deceased at a sum of Rs.7,000/- per month is left undisturbed.
11. However, instead of considering the question whether the Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 7% instead of 5%, it is felt appropriate that in order to meet the ends of justice, some compensation is awarded towards 'conveyance charges' and 'attendant charges' by rounding off the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. It is ordered that the 9 enhanced compensation shall be paid by the insurer to the claimant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realization.
12. The insurer is directed to deposit the said amount within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Judgment.
Sd/-
JUDGE GH