Karnataka High Court
Mr Vincent Victor D Souza vs Mr Sanjay P on 14 June, 2021
Author: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
M.F.A.NO.3988/2013 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. MR. VINCENT VICTOR D'SOUZA
AGED 51 YEARS,
S/O LATE DANIAL D'SOUZA,
R/O H.NO.(4-51)4-108,
CHURCH COMPOUND,
PINTO NAGAR, VAMANJOOR,
BONDANTHILA, MANGALURU TALUK,
D.K.-575 028.
2. SMT.RITA D'SOUZA,
AGED 47 YEARS,
W/O ANTONY D'SOUZA,
R/O BILALKOPPA, KOPPA TALUK,
CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 126.
3. SMT.LEENA D'SOUZA
AGED 41 YEARS,
W/O. JOHN GILBERT CUTINHA,
R/O. NADUMANE HOUSE,
KUDUPU POST,
MANGALURU, D.K.-575 012.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI PUNDIKAI ISHWARA BHAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MR. SANJAY P,
AGED 35 YEARS,
2
S/O. LOKAYYA SALIAN,
OCC: UNKNOWN,
R/O. D.NO.3-63/1,
KAMBLAKODI HOUSE, PACHANADY,
MANGALURU TALUK, D.K-575 008.
2. THE ICICI LOMBARD MOTOR
INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
MAXIMUS COMMERCIAL COMPLEX,
LIGHT HOUSE HILL ROAD,
MANGALURU, D.K.575 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI A.M.VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSAED WITH VIDE ORDER
DATED 21.07.2015)
THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.11.2012
PASSED IN MVC.NO.872/2010 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, MANGALURU, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THROUGH
'VIDEO CONFERENCE' THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Though this appeal is listed for admission today, with the
consent of learned counsel appearing for both the parties, the
same is taken up for final disposal.
2. This appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants
challenging the Judgment and Award dated 13.11.2012 passed
in M.V.C.No.872/2010 on the file of Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal at Mangaluru ('the Tribunal' for short), questioning the
quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
3. The parties are referred to as per their original
rankings before the Tribunal to avoid confusion and for the
convenience of the Court.
4. The factual matrix of the case is that the deceased
was aged about 75 years and he met with an accident on
29.05.2010. Hence, the claim is made by his son and two
daughters. The Tribunal awarded compensation amount of
Rs.71,000/- in total, calculating the loss of monthly income of
the deceased as Rs.4,000/- and taken 15% as savings as the
claimants are not dependants. Loss of estate calculated on
taking 15% of savings from his income and awarded Rs.36,000/-
and awarded an amount of Rs.35,000/- on other heads.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants would
vehemently contend that the Tribunal has committed an error in
awarding compensation only on the head of 'loss of estate' and
ought to have taken note of the fact that he was earning
Rs.8,000/- per month. In support of the same, they have
produced Ex.P10 - Certificate issued by Delite Arrangers and
PWs.2 and 3 have been examined regarding his avocation and
also committed an error in awarding meager compensation on
other heads.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the second
respondent/Insurance Company would vehemently contend that
in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of A.
Manavalagan v. A. Krishnamurthy and Others reported in
ILR 2004 KAR 3268, the Tribunal has rightly taken 15%
savings while calculating 'loss of estate' and awarded an amount
of Rs.36,000/- on other heads is also just and reasonable.
Hence, it does not require any interference of this Court.
7. Having heard the arguments of the respective
counsel and on perusal of the grounds urged in the appeal and
the materials available on record, the points that would arise for
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 an
interference of this Court?
(ii) What order?
Point Nos.(i) & (ii):
8. Having heard the respective counsel and on perusal
of the material available on record, it is not in dispute that the
deceased was aged about 75 years and also it is not in dispute
that the document - Ex.P10 had been marked. In support of
their claim, they have examined two witnesses as PWs.2 and 3
with regard to discharging his duty as caterers. The Tribunal has
taken the income of Rs.4,000/- per month. It was the accident
of the year 2010. Hence, the Tribunal ought to have taken the
notional income in the absence of documentary proof also
Rs.5,500/- per month. After taking 15% of his income towards
savings it comes to Rs.825/- and applying the relevant multiplier
5, it comes to Rs.49,500/- (825x12x5) towards 'Loss of Estate'
in view of the judgment of this court in A. Manavalagan's case
(supra).
9. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/-
towards 'Medicine and Hospital Charges', the same is just and
reasonable and does not require any interference of this Court.
10. In view of the Judgment of the Apex Court reported
in (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680 in the case of
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED V. PRANAY
SETHI AND OTHERS, the appellants/claimants are entitled for
compensation of Rs.70,000/- under the 'conventional heads'.
11. In the circumstances, the appellants/claimants are
entitled for an enhanced compensation of Rs.1,29,500/- and the
same is rounded off to Rs.1,30,000/- as against Rs.71,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal with current and future interest at the
rate of 6% per annum.
12. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The Judgment and Award dated 13.11.2012
passed in M.V.C.No.872/2010 on the file of
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at
Mangaluru is modified granting
compensation of Rs.1,30,000/- as against
Rs.71,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with
current and future interest at the rate of 6%
per annum.
(iii) The respondent No.2/Insurance Company is
directed to deposit the amount within six
weeks from today.
(iv) The Registry is directed to send the records
to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
cp*
