Karnataka High Court
Smt. Bhagyamma vs United Insurance Co. Ltd on 26 November, 2021
Bench: Sachin Shankar Magadum
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
M.F.A NO. 4635 OF 2016(MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. BHAGYAMMA
W/O LATE SHIVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
2. SMT. VENKATAMMA
W/O LATE NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS
3. SRI PROMOD KUMAR S
S/O LATE SHIVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
4. KUM RAMYA S.
D/O SHIVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
ALL ARE R/O MEENAKUNTE HOOSUR VILLAGE,
DODDAJALA POST,
BANGALORE NORTH-562 109
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.CHANDRASHEKAR RODNAVAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. UNITED INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
MOTOR DEALERS DIVISION, 6TH FLOOR,
2
KRISHI BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560 001
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
M/S BANGALORE MEGH CABS PVT.LTD.
BAGLUR ROAD, OPP COUNTRY CLUB,
BANGALORE-560 065
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.C SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 D/W)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:5.11.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1049/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE 8TH ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE, 33RD ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The captioned appeal is filed by the claimants seeking
enhancement of compensation.
2. The appellants filed claim petition for having lost
one Shivanna in a road traffic accident dated 21.12.2013 at
about 7.20 p.m. The appellants contended that on the said
date, the said Shivanna was traveling on a two wheeler and
when he reached ITC junction near Airport Road, the driver of
the offending car bearing Reg.No.KA-50 6753 came in a rash
and negligent manner and dashed against the bike on which
the said Shivanna was traveling. On account of the said
impact, the said Shivanna suffered multiple injuries and he
was immediately shifted to Baptist Hospital where he was
given first aid treatment and thereafter he was shifted to
Columbia Asia Hospital for further treatment. Inspite of
treatment, the said Shivanna succumbed to injuries on
22.12.2013 and hence, claimants filed claim petition claiming
compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.
3. The appellants in support of their contention
examined the widow of deceased as PW.1 and one witness as
PW.2 and adduced documentary evidence vide Exs.P-1 to
P-12. The respondent/Insurance Company did not chose to
lead any rebuttal evidence. Though appellants contended that
deceased was working as a contractor and had income of
Rs.20,000/- per month, however, Tribunal having assessed
the oral and documentary evidence was of the view that no
income proof is placed on record. Therefore, in absence of
income proof, the Tribunal proceeded to assess the income
notionally at Rs.8,000/- and by deducting 1/3rd towards
personal expenses has awarded a sum of Rs.7,03,956/- under
the head 'loss of dependency'. Under conventional heads, a
sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was awarded and towards medical
expenses, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.94,240/- and
towards incidental expenses Rs.5,000/- is awarded. The
Tribunal, in all, has awarded total compensation of
Rs.9,03,196/-.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would
vehemently argue and contend before this Court that
deceased was working as a contractor and therefore, the
income assessed is on the lower side. He would further
submit to this Court that the Tribunal has not taken into
consideration future prospects. In the present case on hand,
having regard to the age of the deceased, 10% ought to have
been added which is not done. Therefore, he would submit to
this Court that the appellants are entitled for enhancement
under the head of loss of dependency. He would also submit
to this Court that the compensation awarded under the
conventional heads is on the lower side. Further, placing
reliance on Ex.P-9, he would submit that ambulance charges
of Rs.8,200/- is not taken into consideration. On these set of
grounds, he would pray for enhancement.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
Insurance Company would however oppose the appeal and
contend that the compensation determined by the Tribunal is
fair and just and may not warrant interference at the hands of
this Court.
6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
counsel for the Insurance Company. Perused the records.
7. In regard to quantum, this Court does not find fault
with the Tribunal in assessing the income of the deceased
notionally at Rs.8,000/-, in absence of proof of income. Even
if we go by the chart issued by the legal services authority,
having regard to the fact that the accident is of the year 2013,
the notional income assessed is Rs.8,000/-. However, I find
some force in the submission made by the learned counsel for
the appellants that future prospects is not added. By applying
the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of National Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi and
Ors.1, having regard to the age of the deceased who was aged
52 years, 10% has to be added towards future prospects.
Therefore, the income of the deceased is assessed at
Rs.8,800/- and after deducting 1/3rd, the income of the
deceased is assessed at Rs.5,866.66/- and by applying the
multiplier of 11, the compensation determined under the head
of loss of dependency works out to Rs.7,74,400/-
(5,866.66x11x12).
2017 ACJ 2700 SC
8. Since there are four dependents, by following the
dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Nanu Ram alias
Chuhru Ram & Ors.2, a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- is awarded.
The compensation awarded towards medical expenses to the
tune of Rs.94,240/- remains undisturbed. I have perused
Ex.P-9 and the same indicates that appellants have paid
ambulance charges of Rs.8,200/-. Further, no reasons are
forthcoming from the judgment for having declined to award
ambulance charges. Therefore, I deem it fit to award
Rs.8,200/- towards ambulance charges. Hence, the total
compensation re-determined by this Court works out to
Rs.10,66,840/- as against Rs.9,03,196/- awarded by the
Tribunal.
9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The
judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified. The
appellants are entitled for enhanced compensation of
2018 (9) SC 51
Rs.1,63,644/- which shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a.
from the date of petition till realisation.
Sd/-
JUDGE
CA
