1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.3849 OF 2013(MV)
C/W
MFA No.3850 OF 2013(MV)
IN MFA 3849/2013
BETWEEN:
Gowramma,
48 years,
W/o Late. Yajamana @ Dosappa,
R/at No.22/2,6th Main,1st Cross,
Agrahara Dasarahalli,
Bangalore-560 079. ... Appellant
(By Sri. R.Chandrashekar, Advocate)
AND:
1. M/s. Tran System Logistics,
International Limited,
No.20, Toyota Techno Park,
Bidadi Industrial Area,
Ramanagaram Taluk & District.
2. The Manager,
New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
DU-3(6703000), No.9,
Mahalakshmi Chambers,
2nd Floor, M.G. Road,
Bangalore-560 001. ... Respondents
2
(By Sri.R.Jayaprakash, Advocate for R2:
Notice to R1 is dispensed with)
This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act,
against the Judgment and Award dated:26.05.2012
passed in MVC No.4905/2010 on the file of the XVII Addl.
Judge, Court of Small Causes, MACT, Mayohall Unit,
Bangalore, partly allowing the claim petition for
compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
IN MFA 3850/2013
BETWEEN
Mahesh, 29 years
S/o Late. Yajamana @ Dasappa,
R/at No.16, 4th Cross,
Industrial Town,
A.D.Halli, Bangalore. ...Appellant
(By Sri.Chandrashekar, Advocate)
AND
1. M/s. Tran System Logistics,
International Limited,
No.20, Toyota Techno Park,
Bidadi Industrial Area,
Ramanagaram Taluk & District-571511.
2. The Manager,
New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
DU-3(6703000), No.9,
Mahalakshmi Chambers,
2nd Floor, M.G. Road,
Bangalore-560 001. ... Respondents
(By Sri.R.Jayaprakash, Advocate for R2:
Notice to R1 is dispensed with)
3
This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act,
against the Judgment and Award dated:26.05.2012
passed in MVC No.5456/2010 on the file of the XVII Addl.
Judge, Court of Small Causes, MACT, Mayohall Unit,
Bangalore, partly allowing the claim petition for
compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
These MFAs, coming on for admission, this day, this
Court, delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Both the appeals are filed by the claimants under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act challenging the judgment and award dated 26.05.2013 passed by the MACT, Bangalore in MVC Nos.4905/2010 and 5456/2010. Since the challenge is to the same judgment, both the appeals are clubbed together, heard and common judgment is being passed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 06.05.2010 at about 11.30 p.m. the deceased in MVC No.4905/2010 was driving the tempo bearing registration No.KA-51/5850 on NH-4 road. When he reached near Petrol bunk, Oorukere, Tumkur, the 4 driver of the lorry bearing registration No.HR-38/K- 7061 came at a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the tempo. As a result, the deceased sustained injuries and he succumbed to the injuries at the spot.
3. The mother of the deceased filed MVC No.4905/2010 under Section 163-A of the Act on the ground that the deceased was aged about 21 years at the time of accident and was employed as a driver and was earning Rs.40,000/- per annum. The owner of the tempo filed MVC No.5456/2010 under Section 166 of the Act on the ground that the tempo was totally burnt beyond repair in the accident and claimant was earning Rs.50,000/- per month out of the usage of the said tempo and the tempo was worth Rs.8,00,000/- at the time of the accident. He claimed 5 a compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- along with interest.
4. In order to support of their case, they have examined claimant in MVC No.4905/2010 as PW-1 and the claimant in MVC No.5456/2010 as PW-2 and the Executive - Legal Claims of the insurance company as PW-3 and got marked 10 documents as Ex.P1 to P10. On the other hand, administrative officer of the Insurance Company was examined as RW-1 and got marked 2 documents as Exs.R1 and R2. After appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.3,75,000/- and 60% of Rs.5,80,000/- respectively, with interest at 6% p.a. and directed the insurance company to pay the compensation. Being not satisfied with the same, these appeals are filed seeking enhancement of compensation.
6
5. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants has raised the following contentions:
Firstly, MVC No.4905/2010 has been filed under Section 163-A of the Act. At the time of the accident the deceased was aged about 21 years and was earning Rs.3,300/- per month. The Tribunal while assessing the compensation has considered the age of the mother of the deceased for consideration of multiplier and the same is contrary to law.
Secondly, in MVC No.5456/2010 the Tribunal has rightly accepted and quantified the compensation as Rs.5,80,000/-, but no reasons are given by the Tribunal for holding that the claimant is entitled to 60% of the total compensation. The same is contrary to the materials available on record. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeals.
7
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has raised the following counter-contentions:
Firstly, in MVC No.4905/2010 at the time of the accident the deceased was aged about 21 years and he has not produced any document to establish that he was earning Rs.3,300/- per month. The Tribunal taking into consideration the materials available on record has rightly granted compensation of Rs.3,75,000/- and the overall compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and no interference is called for.
Secondly, in MVC No.5456/2010 even though the claimant claimed that the damaged caused to the vehicle is Rs.5,80,000/-, he has not produced any materials to establish the same. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly granted 60% of Rs.5,80,000/-. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeals. 8
7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the judgment and award and lower court records.
MFA No.3849/2013:
8. It is not in dispute that deceased died in the road traffic accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. The claim petition is filed under Section163-A of the Act. In view of Schedule - II to the Act, the annual income of the deceased has to be considered as Rs.40,000/-. At the time of the accident, deceased was aged about 21 years and the multiplier applicable under Schedule-II is '17' and 1/3rd of the income of the deceased has to be deducted towards personal expenses. Accordingly, loss of dependency is calculated:
Rs.40,000x2/3x17 = Rs.4,53,333/-. 9 In addition to that, claimant is entitled for Rs.2,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.2,500/- for loss of estate. Accordingly, claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.4,57,833/-.
MFA No.3850/2013:
9. In respect of damages to the vehicle is concerned, it is not in dispute that due to the accident the offending vehicle suffered damages. The claimant has claimed compensation of Rs.5,80,000/-. The Tribunal after considering the materials available on record has rightly held that the total cost of the vehicle damaged as Rs.5,80,000/-, but the Tribunal is not justified in granting only 60% of the total compensation amount. In view of the above, the claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.5,80,000/- for damage of the vehicle.
Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed in part.
10
The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
JUDGE Cm/-