Karnataka High Court
Smt Revamma vs Smt Shylaja S on 2 June, 2021
Author: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
M.F.A.NO.4706/2020 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. REVAMMA
W/O LATE ERANNA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
2. SRI SURESHA
S/O LATE ERANNA,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
3. SRI HEMALATHA
D/O LATE ERANNA,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
ALL THE APPELLANTS ARE
RESIDENT OF HERURU VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 130.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI CHANDRASHEKHARAIAH B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. SHYLAJA S.,
W/O VIJAYARATNA KUMAR,
RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO.1/2,
MISSION COMPOUND,
KUNIGAL TOWN,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 130.
2
2. UNITED INIDA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
D.O.6TH FLOOR, KRUSHI BHAVAN,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
HUDSON CIRCLE,
BENGALURU-560 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. Y.ARUNA, ADVOCATE)
THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.01.2020
PASSED IN MVC.NO.3055/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII
ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND ACMM, MEMBER-MACT (SCCH-5),
BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH 'VIDEO
CONFERENCE' THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award
dated 03.01.2020, passed in M.V.C.No.3055/2019 on the file of
the VIII Additional Small Causes Judge and the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (SCCH-5) at Bengaluru ('the Tribunal' for short)
challenging the quantum of compensation.
2. The parties are referred to as per their original
rankings before the Tribunal to avoid confusion and for the
convenience of the Court.
3. The short question which involved in the matter is with
regard to awarding of compensation under the head of 'loss of
dependency' by taking the income of the deceased. Learned
counsel for the appellants would vehemently contend that the
Tribunal has committed an error in taking the income of the
deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month though the accident is of the
year 2019. Hence, it requires interference of this Court to
recalculate the compensation under the head of 'loss of
dependency' by taking the appropriate notional income.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2
also not disputes the fact that while calculating the
compensation under the head of 'loss of dependency', the
Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased at
Rs.10,000/- per month. However, learned counsel would
vehemently contend that the Tribunal has awarded the
exorbitant compensation on the other conventional heads to the
tune of Rs.1,50,000/- which requires to be Rs.70,000/-, in view
of the decision of the larger bench of the Apex Court in Pranay
Sethi's case.
5. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel
for the respective parties and also on perusal of the records, the
points that would arise for the consideration of this Court are:-
(i) Whether the Tribunal has committed an
error in not awarding the just and
reasonable compensation and whether it
requires interference of this Court ?
(ii) What Order ?
Points No.1 and 2:-
6. Having heard the respective counsel and also on
perusal of the records and so also the award passed by the
Tribunal, it is clear that the Tribunal while assessing the
compensation under the head of 'loss of dependency' has taken
the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month. It is not
in dispute that the accident had taken place in the year 2019. In
the absence of any documentary proof with regard to the income
of the deceased, the Court is obligated to take the notional
income corresponding to the year of the accident. In the case
on hand, the accident is of the year 2019, hence, the Tribunal
ought to have considered the notional income of the deceased at
Rs.14,000/- per month. Hence, it requires interference of this
Court.
7. In so far as the judgment and award of the Tribunal
with regard to the 'loss of dependency' is concerned, it requires
to be reassessed. Since the deceased was aged about 54 years
at the time of the accident, the relevant multiplier applicable
would be 11 and 10% of the income is to be added towards the
future prospects. If 10% i.e., Rs.14,000x10%=Rs.1400/- is
added to the income of Rs.14,000/-
i.e.,Rs.1400+Rs.14,000=Rs.15,400/-, the income would come to
Rs.15,400/- per month. As rightly assessed by the Tribunal,
1/3rd of the income has to be deducted towards the personal
expenses. If 1/3rd of the income i.e.,
(Rs.15,400x1/3rd=Rs.5,133/-) is deducted, it would come to
Rs.10,267/- (Rs.15,400-Rs.5,133). The compensation under
the head of 'loss of dependency' is recalculated as under:-
Rs.10,267x12x11=Rs.13,55,244/-.
8. In view of Pranay Sethi's case, the claimants are
entitled for the compensation to the tune of Rs.70,000/- under
the conventional heads. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.70,000/-
is awarded under the conventional heads.
9. The Tribunal has rightly awarded an amount of
Rs.88,000/- towards the medical expenses since the deceased
died subsequent to the treatment. Since the compensation
awarded under the head of medical expenses is at par, this
Court does not find any reasons to interfere with. Accordingly,
the claimants are entitled for the total compensation of
Rs.15,13,244/- as against Rs.12,06,000/-.
10. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the
following:-
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The judgment and award passed by the
Tribunal is modified by granting the compensation of
Rs.15,13,244/- as against Rs.12,06,000/-. The
claimants are entitled for the interest on the
enhanced compensation at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date of petition till realization.
(iii) Respondent-Insurance Company is
directed to deposit the amount within 6 weeks' from
today.
(iv) In all other respects, the award of the
Tribunal shall remain unaltered regarding
apportionment.
(vi) The amount in deposit, if any, shall be
transmitted to the Tribunal, forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PYR
