Sri.C.R. Raghu V. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Sri.Y.T. Lakshmi Narayan

MFA/3075/2010

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Sri.C.R. Raghu, the husband of the deceased S.N. Anuradha, against the judgment and award of the Tribunal which partially allowed their claim for compensation following a road traffic accident. The accident, which occurred on 28.03.2008, resulted in the death of the appellant's wife, who was a software engineer. The Tribunal awarded Rs.16,00,000 as compensation, which was significantly lower than the Rs.80,00,000 claimed. The appellant contested the amount, leading to this appeal for enhancement of the compensation. The High Court, after reviewing the evidence and applying the principles laid down in Sarla Verma's case, adjusted the compensation amount and upheld the Tribunal's decision on contributory negligence.

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 811051 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Sarla Verma's case (2009 ACJ 1298)
• Laws Referred To: M.V. Act, 1988
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K SURYANARAYANA RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRIPAD V SHASTRI
• Keywords: Compensation; Contributory negligence; Enhancement of compensation; Road traffic accident
• Section: 166; 173(1)

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2014 :PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. PATIL AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP D. WAINGANKAR MFA No.3075 OF 2010 (MV) BETWEEN: Sri.C.R. Raghu, S/o.G.N. Ramakrishna, Aged about 33 years, R/at “Balaji Nilaya”, Ist Cross, Ashok Nagar, Tumkur-572 103. ... APPELLANT (By Sri. Shripad V. Shastri,, Advocate) AND: 1.The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., D.O.VIII, No.47, Gopal Complex, 2nd Floor, Bazaar Street, Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore-5670022. By its Manager. 2.Sri.Y.T. Lakshmi Narayan, S/o.Thirumalaiah, R/at No.405, 14th B Cross, 2nd Stage, M.L. Puram, Bangalore-560 086. ... RESPONDENTS (By Sri.K. Suryanarayana Rao, Adv. for R-1 R-2-Notice dispensed with v/o.dated 20.4.2011) -0-0-0-0-0- 2 This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of M.V. Act against the judgment and award dated 02.01.2010 passed in MVC.No.4711/2008 on the file of the XI Additional Judge, Member, MACT, Court of Small Cause(SCCH-12), Bengaluru, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation. This M.F.A. coming on for hearing this day, N.K. PATIL J., delivered the following: :J U D G M E N T: This appeal by the claimant is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 02.01.2010 passed in MVC No.4711/2008 on the file of the XI Additional Judge, Member, MACT, Court of Small Causes(SCCH-12), Bengaluru, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’ for short) seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. The Tribunal by its impugned judgment and award has awarded a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- under different heads with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment, as against the claim of the appellant for Rs.80,00,000/- on account of the death of the deceased in the road traffic accident. 3 3. In brief, the facts of the case are: The appellant is none other than the husband of deceased S.N. Anuradha and he has filed the claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of M.V. Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.80,00,000/- against the respondents, on account of untimely death of the deceased in the road traffic accident, which occurred on 28.03.2008 at about 8.15 p.m. on NH-4 Bangalore-Tumkur Road, Marappanapalya “U” Turn, When the deceased was crossing the road cautiously, at that time a Tipper Lorry bearing No.KA-13-7097 came with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit the wife of the appellant. As a result of which, she fell down, sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. Further, it is contended that the deceased was aged about 27 years and hale and healthy as on the date of accident and was a software engineer having good academic career and was earning Rs3,79,840/- per annum as per Ex.P34. Further, it was submitted that he has lost his wife at an young age and due to her untimely death, he has lost his life partner and it has 4 affected social, moral and economic condition of the family. Therefore, he was constrained to file a claim petition against the respondents claiming compensation of Rs.80,00,000/-. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and other material available on file, has allowed the claim petition in part and awarded the compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- under different heads with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment of compensation but deducting Rs.4,00,000/- towards the contributory negligence fixed on the part of the deceased a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- was awarded and directed the respondent No.1 to deposit the compensation amount within a month. Not being satisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the appellant has presented this appeal for enhancement of the compensation. 4. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant at the outset is that, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of 5 estate and conventional heads requires enhancement. To substantiate his contention, he has placed reliance on Ex.P34-the income tax returns wherein the income declared by way of salary is Rs.3,79,840/- per annum, and submits that out of the said income deducting professional tax and income tax, the remaining amount may be taken as income of the deceased. Further, out of the said amount arrived, 50% may be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased and considering the age of the husband, who was aged 31 years, the appropriate multiplier may be adopted and compensation be awarded towards loss of estate. Further, the tribunal has failed to award compensation towards loss of dependency. Further, 20% contributory negligence fixed on the part of the deceased is not just and proper and submits that the entire negligence has to be fixed on the driver of the tipper lorry. Therefore, he submits that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal may be modified by awarding enhanced compensation and also the contributory negligence fixed on the deceased be set aside. 6 5. As against this, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent-Insurance company, after going through the records available submitted that Ex.P34 can be taken as the basis for assessing the income of the deceased where the income of the deceased is shown as Rs.3,79,840/- per annum and deducting income tax and profession tax, the remaining amount may be taken into consideration and out of the said amount 50% may be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased. Considering the age of the husband, the appropriate multiplier applicable is 16. The appellant is entitled for compensation only towards loss of estate and not towards loss of dependency. Insofar as contributory negligence is concerned, the Tribunal after careful appreciation of the evidence on record, has fixed the contributory negligence at 20%, which is supported by the findings of the Tribunal. Therefore interference by this Court is not called for. 7 6. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and on perusal of the material available on record, including 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?” 7. It is not in dispute that the deceased died in the road traffic accident. Claimant is none other than the husband of the deceased. Further, it is not in dispute that the deceased was aged about 28 years at the time of accident, hale and healthy and by profession she being a software engineer was drawing a salary of Rs.3,79,840/- per annum. Ex.P34 is the income tax returns in respect of the deceased is not in dispute. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s case (2009 ACJ 1298) an admissible deductions are only income tax and professional tax. Accordingly, if a sum of Rs. Rs.36,876/- is deducted towards income tax and professional tax the net income 8 works out to Rs.3,42,964/-. Out of which 50% has to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased, which works out to Rs.1,71,482/- (i.e.Rs.3,42,964-Rs.1,71,482). Taking the age of the appellant, who was 31 years at the time of accident, the appropriate multiplier applicable is 16. Thus, the appellant is entitled to Rs.27,43,712/-(i.e. Rs.1,71,482 x 16) towards loss of estate. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it fit to award Rs.50,000/- towards conventional heads, such as, loss of consortium, loss of love and affection and funeral expenses. In all, the appellant is entitled for Rs.27,93,712/-. Further, the Tribunal has on careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence has fixed 20% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, which is just and proper and does not call for interference. Accordingly, we deduct 20% towards contributory negligence on the part of the deceased which works out to Rs.5,58,742. The remaining amount will be (Rs.27,93,712-Rs.5,58,742)= Rs.22,34,970/-. Thus, the appellant will be entitled to Rs.22,34,970/- as 9 against Rs.16,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till realization. There will be an enhancement of Rs.6,34,970/-. 8. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 02.01.2010 passed in MVC No.4711/2008 by the XI Additional Judge, Member, MACT, Court of Small Causes (SCCH-12), Bengaluru, is hereby modified awarding an enhanced compensation of Rs.6,34,970/-. The 1st respondent-insurer is directed to deposit enhanced compensation amount with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realisation, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Out of the enhanced compensation, Rs.4,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank, in the name of the appellant-husband of deceased for a 10 period of ten years and renewable for another five years, with liberty to him to withdraw the periodical interest accrued on it. The remaining amount of Rs.2,34,970/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the appellant immediately after deposit by the first respondent. Office to draw the award, accordingly. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE. *alb/-. "