The Manager vs Praveen R
2021 Latest Caselaw 6127 Kant

                             1


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                        BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

             M.F.A. NO.2176 OF 2019 (MV-I)

BETWEEN:

THE MANAGER
IFFCO-TOKIO GIC LTD.,
CUSTOMER SERVICE CENTER
SRI SHANTHI TOWERS 5TH FLOOR
3RD MAIN, NGEF LAYOUT
KASTHURINAGAR
BENGALURU-43.                           ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI. PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.    PRAVEEN R
      S/O RAMESH
      AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,

2.    ASHA R.,
      D/O RAMESH
      AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,

      R/AT NO.2, NEAR YALLAMMA TEMPLE
      KADABEESANAHALLI, PANATHUR
      BENGALURU-560 103.

3.    M/S. STAR CONCRETE PRODUCTS
      NO.138, BODANAHOSAHALLI
      ANAGONDANAHALLI HOBLI
                             2


    HOSAKOTE TALUK
    BENGALURU-560 067.                      ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI K.T.GURUDEVA PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
    NOTICE TO R3 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

     THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.01.2019 PASSED IN MVC
NO.2340/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE 5TH ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE AND XXIV ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU
(SCCH-20), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.10,71,000/-
WITH INTEREST AT 9% P.A. TO THE PETITIONERS WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM DATE OF THIS ORDER.

    THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                       JUDGMENT

The captioned appeal is filed by the appellant-

insurance company questioning the quantum of

compensation determined by the Tribunal.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-

insurance company reiterating the grounds urged in the

appeal memo would vehemently argue and contend before

this Court that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal

under different heads is on the higher side. He would

submit to this Court that Tribunal was not justified in

awarding compensation under the head of loss of

dependency, since the deceased is survived by major son

and a daughter. Therefore, he would submit to this Court

that compensation ought to have been awarded under the

head of loss of estate and not under the head of loss of

dependency. He would also submit to this Court that the

Tribunal erred in awarding interest at the rate of 9% per

annum and therefore would warrant interference at the

hands of this Court.

3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the

respondents-claimants repelling the contentions canvassed

by learned counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance

company would submit to this Court that, in absence of any

income proof, if this Court were to re-determine the

compensation placing reliance on the chart issued by the

Legal Services Authority, the respondent-claimants would

be entitled for higher compensation. However, in the

absence of any appeal by the respondents-claimants, the

present appeal which is purely on quantum is not at all

sustainable and therefore, he would request this Court to

dismiss the appeal.

4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant-

insurance company and learned counsel for the

respondents-claimaints. Perused the records.

5. The respondent-claimants have filed the claim

petition for having lost one Smt. Ananthamma, who was

traveling as a pillion rider of motor cycle. The Tribunal,

after assessing the oral and documentary evidence, in

absence of any income proof, has notionally assessed the

income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month and by

adding 25% of actual income towards future prospects

awarded a sum of Rs.10,40,052/- under the head of loss of

dependency. If these relevant findings are re-examined in

the context of date of the accident which is of the year

2018, I would find that the income notionally assessed by

the Tribunal is on the lower side. Therefore, if

compensation were to be re-determined by assessing

income of the deceased notionally at Rs.12,500/- per

month, the respondents-claimants would be entitled for

higher compensation under the head of loss of dependency.

However, I am of the view that it is not a fit case to

re-examine the findings recorded by the Tribunal while

determining the compensation under the head of loss of

dependency, which is in fact on lower side.

6. However, the Tribunal having awarded a total

compensation of Rs.10,70,052/-, has proceeded to award

interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Therefore, I find

some force in the contention of the learned counsel

appearing for the appellant-insurance company. To that

limited extent, the appellant-insurance company is entitled

for some relief with regard to interest. Hence, the interest

has to be modified at the rate of 6% per annum as against

9% per annum awarded by the Tribunal and on this short

point, the appeal is liable to be allowed.

7. Accordingly, for the reasons stated supra, the

appeal is allowed in part modifying the interest at the rate

of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of

realization on the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in

a sum of Rs.10,71,000/-. The amount in deposit, if any

shall be transmitted to the Tribunal, forthwith.

Sd/-

JUDGE

ST