Karnataka High Court
Rajamani vs Kanchana Bai on 31 May, 2021
Author: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
M.F.A.NO.1749/2019 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. RAJAMANI,
W/O LATE BASAVARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
2. ANANDA B.B.,
S/O LATE BASAVARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS.
3. ABHILASH,
S/O LATE BASAVARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS.
4. MAHADEVAMMA,
S/O LATE SHIVABASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS.
SINCE APPELLANT NO.3 IS MINOR
HE IS REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER
NATURAL GUARDIAN, MOTHER 1ST APPELLANT.
ALL ARE R/AT C/O SANTHOSH C.,
BANK COLONY ROAD, BOGADHI
MYSURU-570026. ... APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. SUMA KEDILAYA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KANCHANA BAI,
W/O LOKANATH RAO KADAM,
2
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
M/S. KALIKA POULTRY FARM,
OPP. GAVADAGERE HIGH SCHOOL,
GAVADAGERE POST AND VILLAGE,
HUNSUR TALUK-571610.
2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, T.P. HUB,
BALLAL CIRCLE, CHAMARAJAPURAM,
MYSURU-570 004. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI A.N. KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
R1- SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.07.2018
PASSED IN MVC.NO.483/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF
ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES AND SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT,
MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING THROUGH VIDEO
CONFERENCE THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award
dated 27.07.2018 passed in M.V.C.No.483/2016 on the file of
the Court of Additional Small Causes and Senior Civil Judge,
MACT, Mysore ('the Tribunal' for short) questioning the quantum
of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
2. The parties are referred to as per their original
rankings before the Tribunal to avoid the confusion and for the
convenience of the Court.
3. The factual matrix of the case is that Sri Basavaraju,
the husband of petitioner No.1, father of petitioner Nos.2 and 3
and son of petitioner No.4 died in a road traffic accident arising
out of use of tractor bearing registration No.KA-45-8703
occurred on 14.02.2016 at about 7.15 to 7.30 a.m. due to rash
and negligent driving of its driver. The claimants claimed the
compensation contending that the deceased was working as a
loader and earning Rs.700/- per day and on account of untimely
death of the said Basavaraju, the family has lost the earning
member of the family. The claim of the claimants was opposed
by the Insurance Company by filing the detailed objection
statement. The claimants in order to substantiate their claim,
have examined two witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 and got marked
the documents at Exs.P.1 to 10. On the other hand, the
respondents have not led any evidence. However, got marked
the document Ex.R.1 policy . The Tribunal after considering both
oral and documentary evidence placed on record, allowed the
claim petition in part granting compensation of Rs.12,35,000/-
with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of
petition till its realization.
4. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal, the present appeal is filed by the
claimants.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants
would vehemently contend that the Tribunal has committed an
error in taking the income of the deceased as Rs.7,500/- per
month and the accident is of the year 2016. The Tribunal ought
to have taken the notional income in the absence of any
documentary proof regarding income. The learned counsel
would contend that there are four claimants and the Tribunal has
committed an error in deducting 1/3rd of the income instead of
1/4th towards personal expenses. Hence, it requires interference
of this Court.
6. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 Insurance
Company would contend that in the cross-examination, there is
an admission that the mother is staying with the other son.
Hence, the Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3rd. However, the
learned counsel fairly concedes with regard to not taking of
notional income is concerned. The learned counsel would also
submit that under other conventional heads, the claimants are
entitled to an amount of Rs.70,000/- in view of the judgment of
the Apex Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED v. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS
reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680.
7. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel
for the appellants and the learned counsel for respondent No.2,
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 and whether it requires
interference of this Court?
8. Having heard the respective learned counsel and also
on perusal of the records, in the absence of any documentary
proof regarding income, the Tribunal ought to have taken the
notional income of Rs.9,500/- per month instead of Rs.7,500/-
per month. Hence, it requires to re-visit the calculation under
the head 'loss of dependency'. The Tribunal has rightly added
25% towards future prospects as the deceased was aged more
than 40 years and has rightly applied the multiplier of '15'.
Now the 'loss of dependency' is calculated as under:
Monthly income - Rs.9,500/-
Add: 25% towards
Future prospects - Rs.2,375/-
--------------
- Rs.11,875/-
Less: 1/4th towards
Personal expenses - Rs.2,969/-
--------------
- Rs.8,906/-
------------------
Loss of dependency = Rs.16,03,080/-
(Rs.8,906/- x 12 x 15) ------------------
9. The claimants are also entitled to an amount of
Rs.70,000/- under conventional heads as held by the Apex Court
in the case of PRANAY SETHI (supra).
In all, the claimants are entitled to a compensation of
Rs.16,73,080/- as against Rs.12,35,000/-
10. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 would
contend that the Tribunal awarded interest at the rate of 9% per
annum and the same should be reduced to 6% per annum and
no appeal is filed by the Insurance Company. Hence, the Court
can allow the interest at the rate of 6% per annum in respect of
the enhanced compensation.
11. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award of the
Tribunal dated 27.07.2018 passed in
M.V.C.No.483/2016 is modified granting
compensation of Rs.16,73,080/- as against
Rs.12,35,000/- with interest at the rate of 6%
per annum on the enhanced compensation.
(iii) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit
the compensation amount with interest within
six weeks from today.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MD
