Karnataka High Court
Smt. Bhagyamma vs National Insurance Company Ltd on 15 June, 2021
Author: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
M.F.A.NO.8942/2012 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. BHAGYAMMA,
W/O LATE S.N. SHANKARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.
2. S. NARASIMHA MURTHY,
S/O LATE S.N. SHANKARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS.
3. S. NARENDRA,
S/O LATE S.N. SHANKARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS.
4. SMT. HANUMAKKA,
W/O NARASIMHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.
5. SRI NARASIMHAPPA,
S/O NARASIMHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
6. SMT. GANGULAMMA,
W/O NARASIMHAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS.
APPELLANT NOS.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS,
REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER AND
NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. BHAGYAMMA,
1ST APPELLANT HEREIN.
2
THE APPELLANT NOS.1 TO 6 ARE
R/AT YALAHANKA,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU. ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI P.L. NANJUNDASWAMY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE No.144,
SHUBARAM COMPLEX,
II FLOOR, M.G.ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. MRS. GEETHA G. SURESH,
W/O G. SURESH,
No.93, 3RD CROSS,
G.K.W. LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 040. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI A.M. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
VIDE ORDER DATED 24.10.2016,
NOTICE TO R-2 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.02.2012
PASSED IN MVC.NO.5553/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE 20TH
ADDITIONAL JUDGE, 18TH ACMM, MACT, BENGALURU, 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:
3
JUDGMENT
Though this matter is listed for admission today, with the
consent of both the learned counsel it is taken up for final
disposal.
2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and
award dated 18.02.2012 passed in M.V.C.No.5553/2010 on the
file of the MACT, XX Additional Judge and XVIII ACMM,
Bengaluru ('the Tribunal' for short) questioning the quantum of
compensation.
3. The parties are referred to as per their original
rankings before the Tribunal to avoid the confusion and for the
convenience of the Court.
4. The factual matrix of the case is that on 28.06.2010,
the deceased Shankarappa was proceeding on his motor cycle
and at that time, the driver of the Maruthi Wagon-R car drove
the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against
him. As a result, he sustained grievous injuries and succumbed
to the injuries at the spot. The deceased was working as a
Mason and earning Rs.250/- per day and due to the untimely
death of the deceased, the family of the deceased lost the
earning member of the family. The claimants are the wife,
children, parents and grandmother of the deceased. The
Tribunal after considering both oral and documentary evidence
placed on record, allowed the claim petition in part granting
compensation of Rs.7,84,400/- with interest at the rate of 6%
per annum. Hence, the present appeal is filed by the claimants.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants would contend
that the Tribunal has committed an error in taking the income of
the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month and it was the accident of
the year 2010. The deceased was aged about 29 years as on
the date of the accident and he left his wife who is aged about
27 years, minor children, parents and grandmother and he was
contributing all his income for the family. The Tribunal
committed an error in taking the income of Rs.4,500/- per
month and the inquest report discloses that he was doing
agriculture and also working as a Mason and when he was
having the skill with regard to mason work, the Tribunal ought to
have taken more income. The Tribunal has also not considered
the future prospects while calculating the loss of dependency.
Hence, it requires interference of this Court.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.1
Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has taken the
income of Rs.4,500/- per month in the absence of documentary
proof and there are no documents to show that he was working
as a Mason and hence the Tribunal has rightly taken the income
of Rs.4,500/- per month and fairly concedes that future
prospects has to be added.
7. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel
for the appellants and the learned counsel for respondent No.1,
the point that arise for the consideration of this Court is:
(i) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error
in not awarding just and reasonable
compensation?
8. Having perused the records, the claimants are the
wife, children, parents and grandmother of the deceased and the
deceased was aged about 29 years as on the date of the
accident in terms of the post mortem report. The Court has to
take note of the fact that he died at the spot and immediately
inquest was conducted and during the course of inquest itself it
was mentioned that he was an agriculturist-cum-mason. It is an
accident of the year 2010 and the notional income in the year
2010 would be Rs.5,500/- per month in the absence of any
documentary proof with regard to the income. It is mentioned
that he was an agriculturist and mason and no special skill is
found on perusal of the records and hence it would be
appropriate to take the notional income of Rs.5,500/- per month
in the absence of any documentary proof with regard to special
skill. The Tribunal committed an error in taking the income as
Rs.4,500/- per month while calculating the loss of dependency.
Now the 'loss of dependency' is calculated as under:
Monthly income - Rs.5,500/-
Add: 40% towards
Future prospects - Rs.2,200/-
--------------
- Rs.7,700/-
th
Less: 1/4 towards
Personal expenses - Rs.1,925/-
--------------
- Rs.5,775/-
------------------
Loss of dependency = Rs.11,78,100/-
(Rs.5,775/- x 12 x 17) -------------------
9. The claimants are the wife, children, parents and
grandmother of the deceased and they are entitled to
Rs.70,000/- under the head conventional heads as held by the
Apex Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY
LIMITED v. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in (2017)
16 SCC 680.
In all, the claimants are entitled for a compensation of
Rs.12,48,100/- as against Rs.7,84,400/-.
10. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award of the
Tribunal dated 18.02.2012 passed in
M.V.C.No.5553/2010 is modified granting
compensation of Rs.12,48,100/- as against
Rs.7,84,400/- with interest at the rate of 6%
per annum from the date of petition till
deposit.
(iii) The Insurance Company is directed to pay the
compensation amount with interest within six
weeks from today.
(iv) The Registry is directed to transmit the records
to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MD
