Karnataka High Court
Dr.Amrutha @ Amruthavathi vs Chavalla Kumar Raja Naidu on 19 July, 2022
Bench: Anant Ramanath Hegde
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.2332/2013 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
DR.AMRUTHA @ AMRUTHAVATHI
W/O M.SACHINDRA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
NO.C-2, AKSHAYA APARTMENT
K.H.M.BLOCK, R T NAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 032 ...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. ARCHANA MURTHY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. CHAVALLA KUMAR RAJA NAIDU
S/O RUDRAPPA NAIDU
OPP. SDR COMPLEX
GARUDA STREET, NAIDUPETA
ANDHRA PRADESH - 524 126
(RC OWNER OF THE VEHICLE
BEARING NO.AP.26/TT.5979)
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER
M/S.ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE
INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
"SRI BALAJI SAVERIGN", 2ND FLOOR
132, BRIGADE ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 025
(INSURER OF THE VEHICLE BEARING
REG: AP.26/TT.5979)
(POLICY NO.VGC0145478000100)
(VALID FROM 15.02.2010 TO 14.02.2011) ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI O.MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH V/O DTD:20.02.2015)
2
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 11.12.2012 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE
MEMBER, PRINCIPAL M.A.C.T., BANGALORE IN
M.V.C.NO.2830/2011 AND PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION
FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the
learned Counsel for respondent No.2.
2. The appellant is in appeal challenging the
judgment and award passed in M.V.C.No.2830/2011 to the
extent of the disallowed claim. In terms of the judgment and
award dated 11.12.2012 the Principal MACT, Bengaluru
awarded compensation of Rs.2,53,879/- as under:
Sl. Head of compensation Amount of
No. compensation
1. Loss of dependency Rs.1,20,000.00
2. Funeral Expenses and Rs.10,000.00
transportation charges
3. Loss of estate Rs.10,000.00
4. Medical expenses Rs.1,13,879.00
Total Rs.2,53,879.00
3. The Insurer has satisfied the award. Thus, there is
no dispute regarding Insurance coverage. The only question
that needs to be answered in this appeal is whether the
appellant is entitled to enhancement of compensation as
claimed.
4. Admittedly, the deceased was aged 66 years at
the time of the accident. The accident occurred on
21.12.2010. The mother of the appellant died on 02.01.2011.
The claim petition is filed by the daughter.
5. The submission is made at the bar that the
deceased is survived by two more daughters. But the other
two daughters have not filed the claim petition.
6. The Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased
at Rs.3,000/- per month, applied the multiplier '5' and
awarded compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- under the head 'loss
of dependency' after deducting 1/3rd towards the personal
expenditure of the deceased.
7. Learned Advocate for the appellant would submit
that in the absence of proof relating to income, at least
Rs.6,000/- per month should be taken as notional income of
the deceased as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka
State Legal Services Authority, to calculate the dependency.
8. Learned Advocate for the Insurer Sri O.Mahesh,
would raise the following contentions:
(i) The appellant being a married daughter, is not the
dependant and she is not entitled to claim any compensation
under the head of 'loss of dependency'. The appellant herself
being gainfully employed was not dependent on the mother.
(ii) The claim petition is not maintainable because the
other two daughters of the deceased are not made parties.
(iii) The ratio laid down in the case of National
Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi [2017] 16 SCC 680]
cannot be applied, because the judgment was rendered in the
year 2017, whereas the accident occurred in the year 2010
and the appellant's mother died in 2011, as such the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal by taking into
consideration the factors prevailing in the years 2010 and
2011 is just and proper and prays for dismissal of the appeal.
9. As far as the contention of Sri O.Mahesh, learned
Counsel for respondent No.2 that the married daughter cannot
be considered as a dependant is concerned, the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Manjuri Bera v.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. [AIR 2007 SC 1474] would come
to the rescue of the appellant. In the said judgment the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the application filed by
the married daughter under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 ('MV Act' for short) cannot be rejected. The married
daughter can also maintain the petition under Section 166 of
the MV Act as a legal representative of the deceased. Thus the
petition seeking compensation is maintainable.
10. Another contention is that the other two daughters
of the deceased have not filed any claim petition or made
parties to the claim petition as such the petition is not
maintainable. The contention is not tenable as the Insurer of
the vehicle has accepted the liability fastened by the Tribunal,
even though the other two daughters are not made parties.
Assuming that there is an inter-say dispute among the
appellant and other two daughters who are not made parties,
it is for them to agitate the dispute before the appropriate
forum. Therefore the said contention is not available to the
insurer, especially in the light of the situation where the
insurer has satisfied the award passed by the Tribunal.
11. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court would
undertake the exercise to re-determine the compensation
payable on account of the death of Sharadamma.
12. Since she died in the year 2011, this Court
following the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal
Services Authority would take the income at Rs.6,000/- per
month. The deceased was aged 66 years at the time of the
accident. Nothing could be added to the future prospectus.
Therefore the notional income would be Rs.6,000/- per month.
13. Since the deceased was aged 66 years, the
appropriate multiplier would be '5' and the Tribunal has
deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased.
Under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this
Court would deem it appropriate to deduct 50% of the
amount, as the other two daughters have not filed any claim
petition. Thus the appellant is entitled to Rs.1,80,000/-
towards 'loss of dependency'. (Rs.6,000/- x 12 x 5) as against
Rs.1,20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
14. It is noticed that Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards
'funeral expenses' and Rs.10,000/- under the head 'loss of
estate'. Under each of the above-said heads, compensation is
enhanced by Rs.5,000/-.
15. The compensation of Rs.1,13,878/- is awarded
under the medical expenses as the same is based on medical
bills and prescriptions. The same does not require any
modification as the materials are not placed before the Court
to enhance the compensation under the said head. Thus the
appellant is entitled to compensation as under:
Sl. Head of compensation Amount of
No. compensation
1. Loss of dependency Rs.1,80,000.00
2. Funeral Expenses and Rs.15,000.00
transportation charges
3. Loss of estate Rs.15,000.00
4. Medical expenses Rs.1,13,879.00
Total Rs.3,23,879.00
16. Hence the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award dated
11.12.2012 passed by the Principal Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Bengaluru in M.V.C.No.2830/2011 is modified.
(iii) The appellant is entitled to compensation of
Rs.3,23,879/- as against Rs.2,53,879/- awarded by the
Tribunal. The enhanced compensation is Rs.70,000/- shall
carry interest @6.p.a. from the date of the petition till the
date of payment.
(iv) It is also noticed that the Tribunal has awarded
interest at the rate of 9% per annum. This Court is
consistently awarding interest at 6% per annum. However, the
insurer has satisfied the award passed by the tribunal.
Therefore, the interest awarded by the Tribunal on the
compensation determined by it is retained and the enhanced
compensation of Rs.70,000/- shall carry interest @ 6% p.a.
(v) Insurance Company shall deposit the
compensation awarded with interest after deducting the
amount, if any, already paid.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KSR
