Karnataka High Court
The Manager vs Mamatha. H. M on 18 February, 2022
Bench: P S Kumar, Rajendra Badamikar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
MFA.NO.2205 OF 2021(MV-D)
C/W
MFA.CROB.NO.7 OF 2022(MV-D)
IN MFA.NO.2205/2021
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER
M/S. IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD.
REGIONAL OFFICE, SRI SHANTHI TOWERS
NO.141, 5TH FLOOR, III MAIN
EAST TO NGEF LAYOUT
KASTURINAGARA
BANGALORE-560 043
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS
M/S. IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD.
KSCMF BUILDING
3RD FLOOR, 3RD BLOCK
NO.18, CUNNINGHAM ROAD
BANGALORE
REPT. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
...APPELLANT
(BY SHRI.B.C. SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
1. MAMATHA. H. M.
W/O. LATE CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
2. H. C. SHASHANK
S/O. LATE CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS
3. GOVINDAPPA S/O. SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
4. RANGAMMA W/O. GOVINDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
2ND RESPONDENT IS MINOR
REPT. BY HIS MOTHER AND 1ST RESPONDENT
ALL ARE R/O. H. J. HALLI VILLAGE AND POST
ROLLA MANDAL, MADAKASIRA TALUK
ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE
ALSO AT
HANDIKUNTE VILLAGE AND POST
HULIKUNTE HOBLI, SIRA TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT
5. Y. DODDAIAH S/O. CHITTAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/O. H.S.M.S. TRANSPORT MAIN ROAD
SIRA, TUMKUR-572 101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. VENKATA REDDY C.M., ADVOCATE
FOR R1, R3 & R4(R2 IS MINOR REP. BY R1),
VIDE ORDER DTD:09.02.2022, NOTICE TO R5 IS D/W)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.12.2020, PASSED IN
3
MVC NO.1985/2018, ON THE FILE OF THE XX ADDITIONAL
SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACMM, BENGALURU SCCH-22,
AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.33,40,000/- WITH
INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION
TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT OF THE AMOUNT IN THE
TRIBUNAL AND ETC.,
IN MFA.CROB.NO.7/2022
BETWEEN:
1. MAMATHA. H. M.
W/O. LATE CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
2. H. C. SHASHANK
S/O. LATE CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS
3. GOVINDAPPA S/O. SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
THIRD PETITIONER IS DIED ON 20.10.2020
2ND APPELLANT IS MINOR REPT. BY
HIS MOTHER AND 1ST APPELLANT
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
H.J. HALLI VILLAGE AND POST
ROLLA MANDAL, MADAKASIRA TALUK
ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE
ALSO AT
HANDIKUNTE VILLAGE AND POST
HULIKUNTE HOBLI, SIRA TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT
...CROSS-OBJECTORS
(BY SHRI. VENKATA REDDY C.M, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. Y. DODDAIAH S/O. CHITTAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
4
R/O. H.S.M.S. TRANSPORT MAIN ROAD
SIRA, TUMKUR-572 101
2. THE MANAGER
M/S. IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD.
REGIONAL OFFICE, SRI SHANTHI TOWERS
NO.141, 5TH FLOOR, III MAIN
EAST TO NGEF LAYOUT
KASTURINAGARA
BANGALORE-560 043
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. B.C. SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2,
VIDE ORDER DTD: 18.02.2022, NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W)
THIS MFA.CROB FILED UNDER ORDER XLI RULE 22 OF
THE CPC, READ WITH SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLE
ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
02.12.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO. 1985/2018 ON THE FILE OF
THE XX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, AND A.C.M.M,
M.A.C.T., BENGALURU (SCCH-22), PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
MFA AND MFA CROB COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Insurer has challenged the quantum of
compensation awarded by the judgment and award dated
02.12.2020 in MVC No.1985/2018 passed by the XX
Additional Small Causes Judge and Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate and MACT, Bengaluru(SCCH-22).
The claimants have filed cross objection seeking
enhancement of compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be
referred as per their status before the Tribunal.
3. Heard Shri.B.C.Shivanne Gowda, learned
advocate for the Insurer and Shri. Venkata Reddy.C.M,
learned advocate for the claimants.
4. First claimant's husband Shri.Chandrashekar
sustained grievous injuries in a road traffic accident on
18.09.2017, when a bus bearing registration No.
KA-06-C-2431 coming from opposite side dashed against
the victim and died on the spot. On adjudication of the
claim petition, Tribunal has awarded Rs.33,40,000/-
5. Shri.Shivanne Gowda for the insurer submitted
that claimants have not produced any proof of income of
the deceased and the Tribunal has considered the income
of the deceased as Rs.25,000/- while computing the loss
of dependency without any proof of income. Therefore, the
impugned judgment and award are liable to be set aside.
6. Shri.Venkata Reddy for the claimants
submitted that Ex.P15 is the certificate issued by the
Labour Department to evidence that the deceased was
working as a Mason and a Mason in these days working in
Bengaluru earns not less than Rs.1,500/- per day.
Therefore, the notional income considered by the Tribunal
is just and appropriate. He further submitted that Tribunal
has erred in not awarding the future prospects.
7. In reply Shri.Shivanne Gowda, in his usual
fairness, did not dispute that the Tribunal has not added
future prospects while computing the compensation.
8. Ex.P15 is a certificate issued by the labour
department and it shows that claimant was working as a
Mason. Ex.P16 are three receipts issued by the association
having received Rs.60/- towards membership. These two
documents do not support the contention of the claimant
so far as proof of income is concerned.
9. In the circumstances, Shri.Shivanne Gowda, is
right in his contention that in the absence of any proof of
income the Tribunal ought to have considered only
notional income. This Court has been consistently
considering the income of an able bodied person in the
year 2017 as Rs.11,000/-. Admittedly claimant was aged
about 46 years and therefore, 25% will have to be added
towards future prospects in National Insurance Company
Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others1.
10. Shri.Shivanne Gowda, submits that 50% of the
amount awarded has been deposited before the Tribunal.
11. Claim petition is filed by the wife, son and
parents of the deceased. They are entitled for Rs.40,000/-
each towards loss of consortium. In addition they are also
entitled for Rs.30,000/- towards conventional heads.
12. The, compensation towards loss of dependency
is worked out as follows;
The monthly notional income works out to
Rs.13,750/- (Rs.11,000+2,750) [by adding 25% towards
future prospects (Rs.11,000*25%=Rs.2,750)]. After
deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses, it works out to
Rs.10,313/- per month (Rs.13,750*3/4). The Annual
notional income works out to Rs.1,23,756/-
(2017) 16 SCC 680 (para ..........)
(Rs.10,313*12). By applying 14 as multiplier, the loss of
dependency works out to Rs.17,32,584/-
(Rs.1,23,756*14).
13. We have re-computed the total compensation
as follows:
Sl. Description Amount
No.
a. Loss of dependency
Rs.17,32,584
b. ADD: Consortium (40,000*3) Rs.1,60,000
c. ADD: Conventional heads;
Rs.30,000
funeral expenses, etc.,
d. Total(a+b+c) Rs.19,22,584
e. LESS: Compensation awarded Rs.33,40,000
by the Tribunal
(d-e)
f. Reduced Compensation (Rs.14,17,416)
(d-e)
14. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed in part by holding
that claimants are entitled for a total
compensation of Rs.19,22,584/-, as against
Rs.33,40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, payable
with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of filing
claim petition till the date of deposit.
(ii) Insurer shall deposit the entire
compensation amount of Rs.19,22,584/- with
interest at 6% p.a., excluding the amount
paid/deposited if any, within six weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Disbursement shall be made as directed by the
Tribunal.
(iii) Registry shall transmit the amount in
statutory deposit of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the
insurer to the Tribunal for disbursement.
(iv) Cross objection is dismissed.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
NS
