Karnataka High Court
Smt Premalatha vs M/S Vivek Transport Co. Ltd., on 11 June, 2021
Author: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
M.F.A.NO.5530/2013 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. PREMALATHA
W/O LATE PRASHANTH
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
2. MASTER SAGAR
S/O LATE PRASHANTH
AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS
3. SHRISTI
S/O LATE PRASHANTH
AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS
APPELLANT NOS.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS
REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL
GUARDIAN-MOTHER APPEALLANT NO.1
4. K. DAMODHAR
S/O LATE PAKIRA POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT MADHUVANA,
DASAKODI HOUSE
BALTHILA VILLAGE
BANTWALA TALUK-574 211.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI K. RANJAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
1. M/S. VIVEK TRANSPORT CO. LTD.,
H.NO.99, SECTOR 17,
AD, GUREGAVE
HARIYANA-122001
2. ICICI LAMBARDO MOTOR INSURANCE
ZENITH HOUSE,
KESHAV RAO KADE ROAD
MAHALAXMI, MUMBAI-400034
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI A.M.VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 04.07.2016
R1 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.10.2012
PASSED IN MVC.NO.160/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE II
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT-6,
MANGALORE, D.K., PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION
FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THROUGH
'VIDEO CONFERENCE' THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Though the appeal is listed for admission, with the consent
of learned counsel for both the parties, the appeal is taken up for
final disposal.
This appeal is filed by the claimants challenging the
judgment and award passed in M.V.C.No.160/2010 dated
12.10.2012 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge and
Member, MACT-IV, Mangalore, D.K. challenging the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that the deceased
met with an accident on 29.10.2009 and the claimants are the
wife, minor children and father of the deceased, who is aged
about 74 years. The Tribunal awarded Rs.6,30,120/- with
interest at 6% per annum. Hence, the present appeal is filed by
the claimants questioning the quantum of compensation
contending the same is very meager and further contend that
the future prospects has not been considered.
3. The counsel appearing for the claimants would
vehemently contend that the compensation awarded on the
other heads is also very meager and the Tribunal has committed
an error in taking the multiplier of 15 instead of 16 since, the
deceased is aged about 33 years. Hence, it requires interference
of this Court.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-Insurance Company would submit that the accident
is of the year 2009 and the Tribunal has rightly taken the income
of the deceased at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month. However,
he fairly concedes that future prospects has not been added and
this Court can reconsider the same.
5. Having heard the arguments of respective counsel
and also on perusal of the material available on record, the
points that arise for consideration of before Court are:
(i) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error
in awarding just and reasonable compensation
and it requires interference of this Court?
(ii) What order?
Point No.(i)
6. Having perused the material available on record, it is
not in dispute that the claimants are wife, children and father of
the deceased. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was
aged about 33 years. On perusal of the judgment and award of
the Tribunal, it is not in dispute that future prospects has not
been added, as contended by the learned counsel for the
claimants. Taking the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per
month considering the fact that this accident has taken place in
the year 2009 and if 40% is added towards future prospects, it
comes to Rs.2,000/- (5,000x40/100). Hence, the monthly
income of the deceased comes to Rs.7,000/-. The claimants are
wife, minor children and father of the deceased, who is aged
about 74 years.
7. The counsel appearing for the respondent-Insurance
Company would submit that father of the deceased is not
dependent and the said contention cannot be accepted for the
reason that his father was aged about 74 years at the time of
the accident and not an earning member of the family.
8. Having taken note of the fact that there was four
dependants, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4th, instead
of 1/3rd and the Tribunal has committed an error in deducting
1/3rd and if 1/4th is deducted from Rs.7,000/-, it comes to
Rs.1,750/- and if Rs.1,750/- is deducted out of Rs.7,000/-, the
monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.5,250/- (7,000-
1,750).
9. It is rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for
the claimants that the Tribunal has committed an error in taking
the multiplier as 15, instead of 16. Taking the income of the
deceased as Rs.5,250/- per month, it works out to
Rs.10,08,000/- (5,250x12x16). The claimants are also entitled
for Rs.70,000/- towards conventional heads in view of the
principles laid down in Pranay Sethi's case. Hence, in all, the
claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.10,78,000/- with
interest at 6% per annum.
10. In view of the discussions made, I proceed to pass
the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The judgment and award passed in
M.V.C.No.160/2010 dated 12.10.2012 on the
file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge and
Member, MACT-IV, Mangalore, D.K. is modified
granting compensation of Rs.10,78,000/- as
against Rs.6,30,120/- awarded by the Tribunal
at 6% per annum.
(iii) The respondent-insurance company is directed
to deposit the amount within eight weeks from
today.
(iv) The Registry is directed to transmit the TCR to
the concerned Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ST
