Smt. Amulya Reddy and Master Sainirup Reddy and Sri. M. Sundar Rami Reddy and Smt. Rathnamma V. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. and L. Umesh

MFA/9074/2009

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the family of the deceased, Chandra Mohan Reddy, against the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) for his death in a road traffic accident. The Tribunal initially awarded Rs. 43,38,000, which the appellants found insufficient, leading to this appeal. The High Court, after re-assessing the income and applying the correct multiplier and deductions for personal expenses, significantly increased the compensation to Rs. 1,59,52,776. The court considered the deceased's role as the sole breadwinner and the financial impact of his untimely death on his family.

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 799294 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 02-01-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Sarla Verma & others \/ Delhi Transport Corporation & another (2009 ACJ 1298)
• Laws Referred To: Section 173(1) of the M.V.Act, Section 166 of the M.V.Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: M S MANDANNA
• Assessee Lawyers: K T PRASAD
• Keywords: Compensation; Future prospects; Loss of dependency; Multiplier method; Negligent driving; Road traffic accident
• Section: 166; 173(1)

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY JANUARY 2013 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.PATIL AND THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.S.INDRAKALA M.F.A.No. 9074/2009 (MV) BETWEEN: 1. Smt. Amulya Reddy W/o Late Chandra Mohan Reddy, Aged about 26 years. 2. Master Sainirup Reddy, S/o Late Chandra Reddy, Aged about 5 years, Minor represented through Natural guardian mother Smt. Amulya Reddy. 3. Sri. M. Sundar Rami Reddy S/o Late Chenga Reddy, Aged about 71 years. 4. Smt. Rathnamma W/o M. Sundar Rami Reddy Aged about 61 years. All are residing at No.17, 10th A Cross, 16th Main Road, BTM Layout, Bangalore .Appellants ( By Sri K.T. Gurudeva Prasad, Advocate) 2 AND: 1. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., 5th Floor, Vokkaligara Bhavana, Hudson Circle, Bangalore560 027. 2. L. Umesh, S/o Sri. Lakshmaiah, No.85, G.M. Palya, New Thippasandra Post, Bangalore-560 027. …Respondents ( By Sri M.S. Mandanna, Advocate for R-1; notice to R-2 dispensed with Vide order dated 23.7.2012) -.-.- This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of the M.V.Act against the judgment and award dated 07.09.2009 passed in MVC.NO.1272/2008 on the file of the X Additional Judge, Member, MACT, Bangalore (SCCH-16), partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation. This MFA coming on for hearing this day, N.K.PATIL, J., delivered the following : 3 J U D G M E N T This appeal by the appellants is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 7.9.2009 passed in MVC.No.1272/2008 on the file of the X Additional Judge, Member, MACT, Bangalore (SCCH-16) (hereinafter referred to as ‘ Tribunal’ for short). The Tribunal by its judgment and award has awarded a sum of Rs.43,38,000/- under different heads with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till its payment, on account of the death of the deceased Chandra Mohan Reddy in the road traffic accident. 2. In brief, the facts of the case are: The appellant No.1 is the wife and appellant No.2 is the minor child and appellants 3 and 4 are the parents of deceased Chandra Mohan Reddy. It is contended by the claimants that on 14.12.2007 at about 10.45 a.m., while the said Chandra Mohan Reddy was riding his 4 motorcycle bearing registration No.AP-28-AG-9539, carefully and cautiously, observing all the traffic rules, proceeding on the left side of the outer ring road, Marathahalli, Bangalore, at that time, a lorry bearing registration No.KA-03-7269 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came from behind and dashed against the deceased. Due to the impact, deceased was thrown out, fell down and sustained severe injuries on vital parts of the body and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Further it is contended that the deceased was aged about 35 years at the time of his death and he was working as a Senior System Engineers in the multinational IT sector, drawing a salary of Rs.1,05,400/- per month as per Ex.P-23. It is the further case of the claimants that the deceased was the sole bread earner of the family and the 1st appellant has lost her life partner at the age of 25 years, and appellant No.2 who was aged 4 years at the time of 5 death of his father has lost his father’s love and affection. The father was aged about 70 years and mother was aged about 60 years and they have lost their only son. It is the further case of the claimants that the deceased was an efficient employee in the company and had bright future and career and he stood distinction through out his career and he was getting a substantial salary of more than Rs.1 lakh at the age of 35 years itself and he has filed the income tax returns and he was paying Rs.12,678/- per month towards income tax and Rs.200/- towards professional tax. It is the further case of the claimants that due to the untimely death of the deceased in the road traffic accident, the family is displaced and they are in great financial distress and have lost the only hope, social and financial security and aspiration in life and the future life of wife, minor child and parents has become jeoparadised. Taking all these factors into 6 consideration, they were constrained to file a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V.Act before the Tribunal against the respondents for awarding reasonable compensation. 3. The said matter had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The respondent-insurer has not entered the witness box nor marked any documents. The Tribunal, has recorded a finding that due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry in question, the accident had occurred and that the vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent-insurer and they are liable to indemnify the award amount and has allowed the claim petition awarding Rs.44,20,000/- towards loss of dependency, taking the income of the deceased at Rs.20,000/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses and applying the multiplier of `18’ having regard to the youngest age of 7 the wife of the deceased in view of the well settled law of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma & others –v- Delhi Transport Corporation & another (2009 ACJ 1298) and Rs.15,000/- under other conventional heads such as loss of love and affection and towards transportation of dead boy, with 6% interest from the date of petition till the date of reaslisation. Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants felt necessitated to present this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants, at the outset, submitted that there is miscarriage of justice by the Tribunal. He submits that, the Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the clinching evidence available on record i.e., the evidence of PW.1, who has stated that the deceased was getting a salary of Rs.1,05,400/- per month and after paying income tax 8 and professional tax, the net salary was Rs.92,522/- per month. He further submits that, 50% should be added to the income of the deceased towards loss of future prospects in view of the decision in Sarla Verma’s case (supra) and ¼th is to be deducted towards personal expenses having regard to the number of dependents. Therefore, he submits that what is awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and therefore just and reasonable compensation be awarded towards loss of dependency by taking note of the fact that the deceased was a Software Engineer by modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. 5. As against this, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent / insurer substantiating the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal inter alia contended that the Tribunal was justified in awarding the compensation after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record and 9 hence interference by this Court is not called for. However, after perusal of the Tribunal’s records, he fairly submitted that the matter requires consideration. He further submits that, the deceased was getting a net salary of Rs.92,522/- per month, after deducting income tax and professional tax, and 50% be added towards future prospects of the deceased and deducting ¼th towards personal expenses of the deceased and applying the proper multiplier of `16’, having regard to thje age of the deceased being 35 years, reasonable compensation be awarded under the head of loss of dependency and conventional heads, in accordance with law. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the insurer after thorough evaluation of the original records available on file, fairly submitted that income of the deceased may be assessed at Rs.1,05,400/- per month as per Ex.P-23. 10 7. After careful consideration of the learned Counsel appearing for both parties and after evaluation of the entire material available on the file and on perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the only point that arises for consideration is: “Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?” 8. The occurrence of the accident and the resultant death of the deceased late Chandra Mohan Reddy in the road traffic accident that occurred on 14.12.2007 are not in dispute. Further it is not in dispute that claimants are none other than the wife, son and parents of the deceased. The deceased was aged 35 years and working as a Senior System Manager in a multinational IT sector. In the light of the submission of the learned counsel appearing for both parties, the 11 income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.1,05,400/- per month. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was an income tax assessee as per the income tax returns filed and the same is made available before the Tribunal. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s case, 50% is to be added to the said income. Accordingly, if 50% is added, the total income comes to Rs.1,58,100/- (Rs.1,05,400/- + Rs.52,700/-). Out of this, a sum of Rs.47,430/- being 30% of the income tax and Rs.200/- being professional tax are to be deducted. After such deduction, the net income comes to Rs.1,10,670/- per month. Out of this, 1/4th has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased since number of dependents are four. Accordingly, if 1/4th is deducted (i.e., Rs.27,617/-), the net income comes to Rs.82,853/- per month. Since the deceased was aged about 35 years, the 12 appropriate multiplier applicable is `16’ following the aforecited judgment of the Apex Court. Accordingly, we re-determine the compensation towards loss of dependency at Rs.1,59,07,776/- (Rs.82,853 x 12 x 16). 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it fit to award a sum of Rs.45,000/- under conventional heads towards loss of consortium, loss of estate, loss of love and affection, Transportation, funeral, obsequies and other expenses. 10. Thus, the total compensation would come to Rs.1,59,52,776/- (i.e., Rs.1,59,07,776/- + Rs.45,000/-) as against Rs.43,38,000/- awarded by Tribunal, with interest at 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization. There will be enhancement of Rs.1,16,14,776/-. 13 For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 7.9.2009 passed in MVC.No.1272/2008 on the file of the X Additional Judge, Member, MACT, Bangalore (SCCH-16) is hereby modified, awarding a sum of Rs. 1,16,14,776/- to the claimants with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation, in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The 1st respondent -insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount with interest within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Out of the enhanced compensation of Rs.1,16,14,776/-, Rs.50 lakhs with proportionate interest shall be invested in the name of the 1st appellant in any Nationalised / Scheduled Bank initially 14 for a period of ten years and to be renewed for a period of another ten years. She is entitled to withdraw the interest periodically. Rs.25 lakhs with proportionate interest in the name of 2nd appellant shall be invested in any Nationalised / Scheduled Bank till he attain the age of 30 years. Appellant No.1-mother is entitled to withdraw the accrued interest periodically till appellant No.2 attains the age of 20 years and from 21 years to 30 years the appellant No.2 is entitled to withdraw the accrued interest periodically. Rs.15 lakhs each with proportionate interest in the name of appellants 3 and 4 shall be invested in any Nationalized/Scheduled Bank for a period of five years. They are entitled to withdraw the interest periodically. The remaining amount of Rs.11,14,776/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of 15 appellant Nos.1, 3 and 4 in equal proportion on deposit by the insurer. Draw the awarfcd accordingly. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE *bk/- "