Karnataka High Court
Smt Rekha D vs Sri Veerappa N on 14 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:46023
MFA No. 3448 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3448 OF 2016 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT REKHA D
W/O LATE K SRIDHARAN
AGED ABOUT 46 YRS
R/AT NO. 3, 9-A CROSS, DEFENCE COLONY,
BANGALORE-73.
2. KUM. MANASEE,
D/O LATE K SRIDHARAN,
AGED ABOUT 13 YRS,
MINOR
THEY ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER AND
NATURAL GUARDIAN APPELLANT NO.1
R/AT NO.3, 9-A CROSS, DEFENCE COLONY,
BANGALORE-73.
3. MAST. GOUTHAM
S/O LATE K SRIDHARAN
AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS
Digitally signed MINOR
by VINUTHA B S
Location: HIGH
THEY ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER AND
COURT OF NATURAL GUARDIAN APPELLANT NO.1
KARNATAKA
R/A NO.3, 9-A CROSS, DEFENCE COLONY,
BANGALORE-73.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. KALPANA P V.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI VEERAPPA N
S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YRS
R/A GANGONDANAHALLI
K G SRI KANTAPURA
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:46023
MFA No. 3448 of 2016
LAKSHMIPURA POST
BANGALORE.
2. M/S CHOLAMANDALAM M S
GENERAL INS. CO. LTD
REGIONAL OFFICE
NO.135/5, 2ND FLOOR, 15TH CROSS
J P NAGAR, 3RD PHASE
BANGALORE-78
REPT. BY REGIONAL MANAGER
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H S LINGARAJU FOR R2.,ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 25.11.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.2963/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE 19TH ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE, MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard Smt. Kalpana P.V., learned counsel for the
appellants as well as Sri H.S. Lingaraju, learned counsel who
represents respondent No.2.
2. Challenge in this appeal is the order that was
rendered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Bengaluru in
M.V.C. No.2963/2014 dated 25.11.2015.
3. Being dissatisfied with the quantum that is awarded
as compensation, the claimants have preferred the present
appeal.
NC: 2023:KHC:46023
4. Arguing in respect of the merits of the matter, the
only point raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is
that the income taken by the Tribunal in respect of the
deceased is on lower side and therefore, by taking the exact
income, recalculation has to be made. Learned counsel also
states that as per the contents of Ex.P-6 which is copy of
certificate issued by Kennametal India Limited and through the
evidence of PW2, it is established that the earnings of
deceased was Rs.35,796/- per month. Learned counsel seeks
to take the said income into consideration for awarding
compensation.
5. Opposing the said submission thus made, learned
counsel appearing for respondent No.2 states that the income
as mentioned in Ex.P6 includes different kinds of allowances
including uniform allowance and therefore, deducting those
inadmissable allowances, the Tribunal has rightly taken the
income of the deceased as Rs.25,271/- per month. A perusal
of contents of Ex.P6 goes to show that the deceased
Sri. K. Shridharan was being paid Basic Salary of Rs.9,975/-,
Additional Basic of Rs.7,088/-, Fixed Dearness Allowance of
Rs.3,643/-, Variable Dearness Allowance of Rs.3,395/-, House
NC: 2023:KHC:46023
Rent Allowance Rs.1,370/-, Additional Housing Rent Allowance
of Rs.4,891/-, Special Conveyance Allowance at Rs.1,130/-,
Special Allowances of Rs.452/-, Medical allowances of
Rs.1,350/-, Educational Allowance of Rs.1,275/- and Uniform
allowance of Rs.1,227/-. As rightly contended by the learned
counsel for the respondent No.2, when the admissible amounts
are taken into consideration i.e., the Basic Salary, Additional
Basic, Fixed Dearness Allowance, Variable Dearness Allowance,
House Rent Allowance and Additional House Rent Allowance,
the monthly income comes to Rs.30,362/-. Out of the said
amount, 10% income tax has to be deducted. The salary after
payment of income tax comes to Rs.27,326/-, on deduction of
professional tax of Rs.200/-, the sum comes to Rs.27,126/-. As
applied by the Tribunal, in case 30% is added towards future
prospectus, the income arrived at would be Rs.35,264/-, on
deduction of 1/3rd of the same towards the personal and living
expenses which the deceased would have incurred for himself
had he been alive, the contribution towards his family members
comes to Rs.23,509/-. Therefore, the annual contribution of
the deceased towards his family members comes to
Rs.2,82,108/-. On applying the appropriate multiplier of '14',
NC: 2023:KHC:46023
the loss of dependency comes to Rs.39,49,512. Only
Rs.36,79,536/- is awarded by the Tribunal under that head.
The difference of amount is Rs.2,69,976/-.
6. This Court does not find any other grounds to
interference with. Thus, the amount that is liable to be
enhanced is Rs.2,69,976.
Thus, the appeal is allowed in part.
The award of compensation is enhanced by
Rs.2,69,976/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the
same rate as awarded by the Tribunal and apportionment also
to the same effect.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RAK
