SRI. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G., ADVOCATE) v. DISPENSED WITH)

(BY SMT. POOJA PARVATHI U., ADV FOR SRI. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G., ADVOCATE) …APPELLANTS AND:

MR. K T NARAYANA SWAMY, S/O. THIMMAYA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:49396 MFA No. 1990 of 2020 HC-KAR R/AT KOLTOOR HOUSE, YALADOOR HOBLI, SRINIVASAPURA, KOLAR, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101.

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR K.S.R.T.C MANGALURU DIVISION, D. K. - 575 001. REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. (BY SMT. LALITHA P. M., ADV FOR R2; V/O DATED 10.08.2023, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) …RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.27.03.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.327/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, MANGALURU, D.K, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the claimants being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 27th March 2019, passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Mangaluru, D.K, (for - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:49396 MFA No. 1990 of 2020 HC-KAR short `Tribunal'), in MVC No.327/2016, seeking enhancement of compensation. Though this appeal is listed for hearing of Interlocutory Application, with the consent it is taken up for final disposal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

The brief facts of the case are that, on 16.12.2015 deceased-Aboobakker met with an accident while travelling on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-19/EA-9248 on Mangaluru-B.C. road, due to rash and negligent driving of a bus belonging to respondent No.2 bearing registration No.KA-19/F-

3265. Due to the impact, he sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries on 18.12.2015. The claimants being the wife and children filed this petition for enhancement of compensation.

The facts of the accident and death of Aboobakker in the said accident are not in dispute. The respondents have not filed any appeal challenging the impugned judgment. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:49396 MFA No. 1990 of 2020 HC-KAR Therefore, there is no need to reconsider the merits of the matter.

The grievance of the appellants is that the deceased was earning Rs.50,000/- to Rs.70,000/- per month by doing the real estate business. But the Tribunal has taken income as Rs.10,000/- per month. Therefore, the said assessment is incorrect. It is further contended that the Tribunal failed to add future prospects, despite accepting that the deceased was aged about 53 years. It is also urged that there were four dependents. However, the Tribunal has deducted only 1/3rd towards personal expenses instead of 1/4th. He further stated that as per the Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and Others1, the Tribunal ought to have awarded appropriate compensation towards the loss of consortium. In view of these reasons, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate. Hence, prayed to enhance the same.

While discussing issue No.2, the Tribunal has taken income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month. The Tribunal 1 (2018) 18 SCC 130 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:49396 MFA No. 1990 of 2020 HC-KAR has considered the materials placed on record by the claimants regarding the bank account of the deceased. On the basis of certain entries in the bank passbook, income cannot be assessed unless there are materials to substantiate the same. If the deceased was earning Rs.50,000/- to Rs.70,000/- per month, then he should be an assessee under the income tax, but no such records are produced before the Court. Therefore, the Tribunal on the basis of available materials, assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month, which does not call for any interference. It is true that the Tribunal has not taken into account addition of the amount towards future prospects as held in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others2, which is referred by the Tribunal. There were four dependents of the deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4th of his income towards personal expenses. Hence, the compensation awarded under the head loss of dependency has to be recalculated.

The Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head loss of consortium. As held in the 2 AIR 2017 SC 5157 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:49396 MFA No. 1990 of 2020 HC-KAR case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), Rs.40,000/- ought to have been awarded to each of the claimants under this head. Therefore, the compensation awarded under the said head also requires recalculation.

For the foresaid discussions, the claimants are entitled to the following amount of compensation: Particulars Amount in Rs. Loss (10,000+10%x12x11x3/4) dependency 10,89,000/- Loss of consortium (40,000x4) 1,60,000/- Loss of estate Funeral expenses Total Amount awarded by the Tribunal Enhancement- Rounded off- 15,000/- 15,000/- 12,79,000/- 09,50,044/- 3,28,956/- 3,29,000/-

The claimants are entitled to interest on the enhanced amount of compensation at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till its realisation. Liability to pay the compensation is not disputed. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:49396 MFA No. 1990 of 2020 HC-KAR