Jyothi S vs Jayanthi
2021 Latest Caselaw 1977 Kant

                               1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

            DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MAY, 2021

                           BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

                  M.F.A.NO.7122/2019 (MV)

BETWEEN:

1.     JYOTHI S
       W/O LATE SIDDARAJU S,
       AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,

2.     KUMARI SRIAKASHA S
       S/O LATE SIDDARAJU S,
       AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS,
       (SINCE MINOR REP. THROUGH HIS NATURAL
       GUARDIAN MOTHER, APPELLANTS NO.1)

       BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
       NO.170A, KANDAHALLI VILLAGE,
       YELANDUR TALUK,
       CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT.
                                             ... APPELLANTS

             (BY SRI MANJUNATH N.D., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     JAYANTHI
       D/O VASURA,
       AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
       R/AT NO.135/1, 6TH CROSS,
       MARUTHI NAGAR,
       GUTHALU COLONY,
       MANDYA DISTRICT.
                                     2




2.   THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
     IFCOTOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
     NO.846, NEW KANTHARAJ URS ROAD,
     SRI KRISHNA BAKERI,
     NEAR AKSHAYBANDAR,
     KUVEMPUNAGAR, MYSURU.
                                       ... RESPONDENTS

       (BY SRI D.VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
VIDE ORDER DATED 26.05.2021, R1-NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)

     THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.06.2019
PASSED IN MVC.NO.55/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT    AND      SESSIONS    JUDGE    AND     MACT,
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT, CHAMARAJANAGAR, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

    THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                            JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed challenging the quantum of

compensation awarded vide judgment and award dated

11.06.2019 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge and

MACT, Chamarajanagar District, Chamarajanagar, ('the Tribunal'

for short) in MVC No.55/2017, by the claimants.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that the deceased

Siddaraju had met with an accident on 26.01.2017 at about 3.30

p.m. near Mellahalli Gate on Santhemarahalli - Yelandur Main

Road when he was riding his scooter bearing Registration No.KA-

10-Q-8155 towards Santhemarahalli Village. The said claim was

opposed by the Divisional Manager of Insurance Company by

filing the objection statement. The claimants, in order to

substantiate their claim, have examined one witness as P.W.1

and got marked documents Exs.P1 to P10. The respondents did

not choose to lead any evidence before the Tribunal. The

Tribunal, after considering both oral and documentary evidence,

awarded the compensation of Rs.17,22,800/- with interest at the

rate of 8 % per annum from the date of filing the petition till its

realization. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation,

the present appeal is filed.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would

vehemently contend that the deceased was an auto driver and in

order to substantiate the said fact, Ex.P10-the driving licence

was produced before the Tribunal. Inspite of producing the said

document and the accident had taken place in the year 2017,

the Tribunal has grossly erred in taking the income of the

deceased as Rs.9000/-. Hence, it requires interference of this

Court.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent No.2 would submit that this accident is of the year

2017 and the Tribunal has taken the notional income of the

deceased at Rs.9,000/- as there is no income proof document.

Hence, it does not require interference of this Court with regard

to loss of dependency is concerned.

5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the

appellants and learned counsel for the respondent No.2, the

point that would arise for the consideration of this Court is:-

1. Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding the just and reasonable compensation and whether it requires interference of this Court?

6. Having heard the respective counsel and also on

perusal of the records, there is no dispute with regard to the

accident is concerned, but the dispute is only with regard to the

quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. No doubt,

the Tribunal has taken the notional income of the deceased while

calculating the loss of dependency but the same is on the lower

side as rightly been pointed out by the learned counsel for the

appellants. The notional income would be Rs.11,000/- per month

as the accident was taken place in 2017. The deceased was a

driver and skilled labour. In order to prove the said factum, the

claimants have produced the driving licence of the deceased at

Ex.P.10. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the

deceased was an auto driver and hence, apart from the notional

income of Rs.11,000/-, keeping in view the deceased was a

skilled labour, an additional income of Rs.1,000/- is to be added

while calculating the loss of dependency, which comes to

Rs.12,000/- per month.

7. In view of Pranay Sethi's case, 40% of the future

prospects of the deceased i.e., (Rs.12,000X40%=Rs.4,800), is

to be added to the income of Rs.12,000/-, by adding so, it

comes to Rs.16,800/- (Rs.12,000+Rs.4,800/-). In view of Sarla

Verma's case, 1/3rd of the income of the deceased

(Rs.16,800x1/3rd=Rs.5600), is to be deducted towards personal

and living expenses, by deducting so, it comes to Rs.11,200/-

(Rs.16,800-Rs.5,600). By applying the relevant multiplier of 16,

the loss of dependency would come to Rs.21,50,400/-

(Rs.11,200x12x16). If an undisputed additional amount of

Rs.1,10,000/- is added towards conventional heads, the

claimants are entitled to the total compensation of

Rs.22,60,400/- as against Rs.17,22,800/-.

8. 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    total

compensation of Rs.22,60,400/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

(iii) Respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount within 8 weeks' from today.

(iv) In all other respects, the award of the Tribunal shall remain unaltered.

Sd/-

JUDGE PYR