Karnataka High Court
Sri. Kumar @ Venkatesh vs M/S Iffco Tokkio on 6 January, 2022
Bench: P S Kumar, Rajendra Badamikar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 8329 OF 2015(MV)
C/W
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 8330 OF 2015(MV)
IN MFA NO.8329/2015:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI KUMAR @ VENKATESH
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
2. KUM. MARY
D/O M KUMAR @ VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS
3. KUM. THRISHA
D/O M KUMAR @ VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS
4. MASTER SANTHOSH KUMAR
S/O M KUMAR @ VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 3 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT NO.467, 2ND MAIN
A CROSS, AMBEDKAR NAGAR
OLD BYIPANAHALLI
BANGALORE-560 033
APPELLANTS NO.2 TO 4 ARE
MINORS REPRESENTED BY
2
NATURAL GUARDIAN THE
1ST APPELLANTS
...APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. VASANTHAPPA.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S IFFCO TOKKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD
MOTOR CLAIMS HUB,
NO.141, 4TH FLOOR,
SRI SHANTHI TOWERS,
OPP. CUPA, 3RD MIAN,
EAST OF NGEF LAYOUT,
KASTURINGAR,
BENGALURU-560 043
2. SRI VENKATESH BABU
S/O SRI VENKATA SHETTY,
NO.134, CBI ROAD
KOTE KUNIGAL TOWN,
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H.N. KESHAVA PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R1,
VIDE ORDER DATED 02.09.2021, NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD
SUFFICIENT)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.04.2015 PASSED
IN MVC NO.1123/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE AND XXVIII ACMM, MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO.8330/2015:
BETWEEN:
SRI. KUMAR @ VENKATESH
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/AT NO.467, 2ND MAIN,
A CROSS, AMBEDKAR NAGAR,
OLD BYIPANAHALLI,
BANGALORE-560 033 ...APPELLANT
(BY SHRI. VASANTHAPPA, ADVOCATE)
3
AND:
1 . M/S IFFCO TOKKIO
GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
MOTOR CLAIMS HUB,
NO.141, 4TH FLOOR,
SRI SHANTHI TOWERS,
OPP CUPA, 3RD MAIN,
EAST OF NGEF LAYOUT
KASTURINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 043
2 . SRI VENKATESH BABU
S/O SRI VENKATA SHETTY,
NO.134, CBI ROAD,
KOTE KUNIGAL TOWN,
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 102
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H.N. KESHAVA PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R1,
VIDE ORDER DATED 02.09.2021 NOTICE TO R2 IS
HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.04.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1124/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE AND XXVIII ACMM, MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THESE MFAs COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
P.S.DINESH KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
These two appeals are presented by the claimants
challenging the judgment and award dated April 18,
2015, in MVCs.No.1123 & 1124 of 2014 passed by the
Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal & II
Additional Small Causes Judge & XXVIII ACMM,
Bengaluru.
2. MFA No.8329/2015 is filed by the legal heirs of
deceased Smt.Sangeetha. MFA No.8330/2015 is filed
by Sangeetha's husband claiming enhancement of
compensation for the loss of foetus.
3. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be
referred as per their status before the Tribunal.
4. Heard Shri Vasanthappa, learned advocate for
claimants-appellants and Shri H.N.Keshava Prashanth,
learned advocate for first respondent-Insurer.
5. In MFA No.8329/2015, pregnant wife of first
claimant's Smt.Sangeetha sustained grievous injuries in
a road traffic accident on 19.02.2014, when a bus
bearing Registration No.KA-01-D-4396 coming from
opposite side dashed against her. Smt.Sangeetha
succumbed to the injuries in the hospital.
On adjudication of the claim petition, Tribunal has
awarded Rs.14,59,900/- in MVC.No.1123/2014 and
Rs.2,50,000/- in MVC.No.1124/2014 with interest at 6%
from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
6. Shri Vasanthappa for the claimants submitted that
deceased was working as housemaid and earning
Rs.10,000/- per month. Learned Tribunal has erred in
considering the income of the deceased as Rs.7,000/-
per month, and accordingly sought for enhancement.
7. He further submitted that the Tribunal has
erroneously absolved the insurer from indemnifying the
owner of the vehicle on the ground that the offending
vehicle, the bus had no permit to ply on the route,
where accident has occurred. He submitted that in view
of law laid down in Amrit Paul Singh & Another Vs.
Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited1,
insurer is liable to satisfy the award with liberty to
recover from the owner of the bus.
8. Shri.H.N.Keshava Prashanth, learned advocate for
the insurer, in his usual fairness, does not dispute this
position of law.
9. We have carefully considered the submissions of
learned advocates on both sides and perused the
records.
10. Claimants have not produced any document
before the Tribunal to substantiate their claim that
Smt.Sangeetha was earning Rs.10,000/- per month.
In the absence of any proof of income, this Court has
consistently considered the notional income of an able
bodied person in the year 2014 as Rs.8,500/- p.m.
11. Deceased was aged 34 years, hence the applicable
multiplier is 16 and future prospects is to be
added at 40%.
12. First claimant is the husband, claimants No.2 to 4
are minor children of the deceased. Hence, 1/4th is
deductible from the earnings of the deceased while
calculating loss of dependency.
13. Thus, compensation towards loss of dependency is
worked out as follows;
The monthly notional income works out to
Rs.11,900/- (Rs.8,500+3,400) [by adding 40% towards
future prospects (Rs.8,500*40%=Rs.3,400)]. After
deducting 1/4th, it works out to Rs.8,925/- per month
(Rs.11,900*3/4). The Annual notional income works
out to Rs.1,07,100/- (Rs.8,925*12). By applying 16
as multiplier, the loss of dependency works out to
Rs.17,13,600/- (Rs.1,07,100*16).
14. Total compensation is re-computed as follows;
Sl. Description Amount
No.
a. Loss of dependency
Rs.17,13,600
b. ADD:Consortium
(Rs.40,000*4) Rs.1,60,000
c. ADD:Conventional
heads;funeral Rs.30,000
expenses, etc.,
d. Total (a+b+c) Rs.19,03,600
e. LESS: Compensation Rs.14,59,900
awarded by the
Tribunal
Enhanced Compensation (d-e) Rs.4,43,700
15. Following the law laid down in Amrit Paul Singh
(supra), we hold that the insurer is liable to
indemnify the owner of the vehicle with liberty to
pay and recover by executing the decree in these
proceedings.
16. In MFA No.8330/2015, the claimant is
Sangeetha's husband. He has sought enhancement of
compensation for loss of foetus. The Tribunal has
awarded Rs.2,50,000/-. In New India Assurance
Co.Ltd. Vs. Satender and Others2, the Apex Court has
held that a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- is payable as
compensation for loss of foetus. Since Tribunal has
already awarded more than the said sum, no
interference is required in this appeal.
17. Hence, the following;
ORDER
(i) MFA No.8329/2015 is allowed in part
by holding that claimants are entitled
for a total compensation of Rs.19,03,600/-,
as against Rs.14,59,900/- awarded by the
Tribunal, payable with interest at 6% p.a.,
(2006) 13 SCC 60 PARA 13
from the date of filing claim petition till the
date of deposit. The enhanced compensation
is Rs.4,43,700/-;
(ii) Insurer shall pay the entire
compensation amount of Rs.19,03,600/- with
interest at 6% p.a., excluding the amount
paid, if any, within eight weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order and
recover the same from the owner of the
vehicle. Disbursement shall be made as
directed by the Tribunal; and
(iii) MFA No.8330/2015 is dismissed.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
NS/AV
