Shri M Krishna Murthy and Smt G Chandra V. The New Indian Assurance Company Limited and Sri Syed Samiulla and Sri Manjunath

MFA/936/2013

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the parents of the deceased, K. Shivakumar, against the compensation awarded by the Tribunal following a road traffic accident. The Tribunal had awarded Rs.3,42,000 for the death of Shivakumar, who was a graphic designer and the sole breadwinner of his family. The appellants contested the amount, seeking an enhancement to Rs.40,00,000, citing inadequate assessment of Shivakumar's income and insufficient compensation for conventional heads. The Insurance Company defended the Tribunal's decision, arguing the compensation was just and proper. The High Court, after reassessing the income and considering the loss to the family, increased the compensation significantly.

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 690464 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 04-02-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Munna Lal Jain & Anr vs Vipin Kumar Sharma & Ors
• Laws Referred To: Motor Vehicles Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: R JAIPRAKASH
• Assessee Lawyers: M G VEERABHADRAIAH
• Keywords: Claim Petition; Compensation Enhancement; Death; Negligence; Road traffic accident
• Section: 166; 173(1)

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2016 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY M.F.A.No.936 OF 2013 (MV) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI M KRISHNA MURTHY S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 2. SMT G CHANDRA W/O M KRISHNA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS #1, THIMMARAYAPAP GARDEN 9TH CROSS, KADIRAPPA ROAD DODDIKUNTE, COX TOWN BANGALORE 560 005 ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI.M.G. VEERABHADRAIAH , ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE NEW INDIAN ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED CITY BRANCH MAHADEVAPURA #67/1, REDDY COMPLEX WHITE FIELD MAIN ROAD MAHADEVAPURA POST BENGALOORU 560 048. 2. SRI SYED SAMIULLA S/O SYED MEHABOOB AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS #228, I CROSS, II MAIN 2 EAST OF NGEF LAYOUT KASTURINAGARA BENGALOORU 560 016. 3. SRI MANJUNATH S/O KAPINIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS #22, RANAJI RAO ROAD NEAR CHURCH, BASAVANAGUDI BENGALOORU. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.R.JAIPRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; NOTICE TO R-2 & R-3 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:20.06.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.7942/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: :J U D G M E N T: This is claimants’ appeal filed against the impugned judgment and award dated 20th June 2012 passed in MVC No.7942/2010 on the file of the Judge and Member-MACT, SCCH-09, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’ for short), for enhancement of compensation. 3 2. The Tribunal by its judgment and award has awarded a sum of Rs.3,42,000/- under different heads with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, as against the claim of the claimants for a sum of Rs.40,00,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased late Sri K. Shivakumar in the road traffic accident. 3. In brief, the facts of the case are: The 1st and 2nd appellants are parents of the deceased and they have filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- on account of the death of the deceased in the road traffic accident, contending that, when the deceased K. Shivakumar was going on his motor cycle bearing No.KA 03 EV 7378 towards his house (from eastern to western direction) at that time the driver of the offending goods truck bearing No. KA 03 B 5717 drove the same with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed 4 against the said motor cycle and in the said accident the rear wheel of the said lorry ran over the motor cycle and also on the said K. Shivakumar and he was succumbed to the injuries while he was shifting to Bowring Hospital, Bangalore. The case of the appellants that deceased was the only bread earning member and they were dependent on the deceased. It is the further case of the appellants that, the deceased was aged about 26 years at the time of accident, hale and healthy, was working as Graphic Designer in S.K. Engineering Company, getting salary of Rs.16,000/- p.m. and also he was earning extra amount of Rs.10,000/- outside his office in the same profession and contributing the entire income to the welfare of his family. Due to his untimely death, they suffered socially and economically and sudden death of the deceased has caused great hardship to his family members. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after appreciating the oral and documentary 5 evidence at Exs.P1 to P24, Exs.R1 and R2 and other materials available on record, has allowed the claim petition in part and awarded the compensation of Rs.2,97,000/- towards loss of dependency, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and transportation of dead body, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. In all, Rs.3,42,000/- is awarded with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants have presented this appeal, for enhancement of compensation. 4. The submission of learned counsel appearing for the appellants at the outset is that, the Tribunal has assessed income only Rs.4,500/- per month which is on the lower side. Since the accident has occurred on 9.9.2010, deceased was aged about 26 years and only son to his parents, the Tribunal has not considered the income 6 of the deceased properly as he was working as Graphic Designer in S.K. Engineering Company, was getting salary of Rs.16,000/- p.m and also he was earning extra amount of Rs.10,000/- out side his office in the same profession. Taking all these aspects, the income of the deceased may be reassessed. The Tribunal also erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards conventional heads. Due to his un-timely death, claimants have lost their only breadwinner and facing great mental shock and monetary loss. Therefore, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be modified. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurer inter alia contended and substantiated that, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper. The Tribunal has rightly assessed income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/-p.m. and interference by this Court is not called for. However, he submitted that the 7 compensation awarded under conventional heads may be modified in accordance with law. 6. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and on perusal of the materials available on record, including the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the only point that arise for consideration is: “Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?” 7. It is not in dispute that the deceased died in the road traffic accident. Further it is not in dispute that, the deceased was aged about 26 years at the time of accident, hale and healthy and looking after the welfare of the appellants. The claimants are none other than the parents of the deceased, who have lost their future security due to his untimely death. He was working as Graphic Designer in S.K. Engineering Company and he was getting salary of 8 Rs.16,000/- p.m. and also he was earning extra amount of Rs.10,000/- outside his office in the same profession. To prove income of the deceased the appellants have produced salary certificate as per Ex.P12 dated 10.08.2010 in which he was appointed as Sr. Graphic designer and getting salary of Rs.16,000/-. To prove the employment of the deceased in S.K. Engineering, the appellants have produced Ex.P14 - Certificate, Ex.P15 - Copy of the value added tax registration certificate, Ex.P16 copy of the acknowledgment issued by Income Tax Department, Ex.P17 copy of the acknowledgment of statement of Income and they have examined employer to prove the income. It is required to prove income. Mere production of salary certificate and examining of employer is insufficient to prove the income of the deceased. When the deceased earning Rs.16,000/- p.m, the claimants have to produce additional documents namely Bank transaction, pass book, Income tax paid by the deceased-asseessee and some other documents. No 9 such documents are produced to prove the income of the deceased. He had completed SSLC in March 2001 as per Ex.P20. Except this nothing is produced. In such circumstances, the earning of the deceased at Rs.16,000/- p.m. cannot be believed. He was resident of Bangalore and was having D.L as per Ex.P10. He has got moderate life style and he must have spent amount to meet the needs. Having regard to the age, avocation and year of accident, I can safely re-assess the income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month to meet the ends of justice as against the income assessed by the Tribunal. Out of it, if 50% is deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased, it comes to Rs.4,000/-. Rs.2,000/- is added as Future Prospects to Rs.4,000/- as assessed above. Therefore, the total income comes to Rs.6,000/-. In the light of the decision of Supreme Court in Munna Lal Jain & Anr vs Vipin Kumar Sharma & Ors, the appropriate multiplier applicable is ‘17’ taking the age of the deceased as 26 10 years. Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to a compensation towards loss of dependency at Rs.12,24,000/- (Rs.6,000/-x12x17). 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case that, the parents have lost their son and they have lost the love and affection in life, I deem it fit to award Rs.40,000/- towards other conventional heads. 9. In all, the claimants are entitled for Rs.12,64,000/- as against Rs.3,42,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal dated 20th June 2012 in MVC No.7942/2010vb is hereby modified. The total compensation payable comes to Rs.12,64,000/- as against Rs.3,42,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. There will be an enhancement of Rs.9,22,000/- 11 win interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The disbursement of the enhanced compensation shall be done as per the apportionment done by the tribunal. The Insurance Company to satisfy the enhanced amount within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment and award. Sd/- JUDGE ra "