SMT. HANUMAMMA v. SRI. VENKATESHA

(BY SRI.ASHOK M PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 08.11.2023) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.06.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.5710/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-11), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 03.06.2019 passed by the I Additional Small Causes Judge and MACT, Bangalore (SCCH- 11) (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in MVC.No.5710/2017. This appeal is premised on the ground that the compensation awarded is inadequate and meager. Hence, the appellants seek enhancement of compensation.

2. Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per their status before the Tribunal. - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:3168 MFA No. 962 of 2021

3. Brief facts of the case are as under: One Ramesha was traveling towards Kunigal as a pillion rider in bike bearing reg. No.KA-06-ET-8787 along with rider Venkatesha on 10.12.2016. When they reached in front of the KEB Office, Hebbur Village, T.M.Road, rider of the vehicle rode the bike in rash and negligent manner and lost control due to which they fell down and the pillion rider Ramesha sustained grievous injuries due to the accident and he was shifted to the District Hospital at Tumkur and after securing first aid, the injured Ramesha was shifted to Nimhans Hospital at Bangalore and he was inpatient and underwent surgery for head injury. Later, he was shifted to KIMS Hospital, Bangalore where he succumbed to the injuries on 02.03.2017.

4. It is contended by the claimants that the deceased was the bread earner of the family and he has spent more than Rs.3,00,000/- for the treatment and he was involved in electrical work and was earning more than Rs.600/- per day. Due to the untimely and sudden death of the deceased the appellants/claimants who are the parents of the deceased have lost their bread earner, his love and affection and also mentally - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:3168 MFA No. 962 of 2021 and financially. Hence, they filed a claim petition seeking compensation.

4.2. Respondents appeared and filed statement of objections denying the claim made by the claimants and denied the income, avocation and age of the deceased and the compensation sought for is exorbitant. Hence, sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

4.3. On the basis of pleadings, the Tribunal framed relevant issues for consideration.

4.4. In order to substantiate the issues and to establish the case, claimant No.1 got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to 13. Whereas respondent No.2 examined itself as RW.1 and got marked the documents as Ex.R1 to 4 and examined one eyewitness as RW.2.

4.5. On the basis of material evidence both oral and documentary and on hearing the submissions of learned counsel for both parties, the tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.12,64,570/- with interest @ 9% p.a. to the claimants and directed respondent No.2 to deposit the compensation amount within a period of 30 days. - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:3168 MFA No. 962 of 2021

4.6. Being aggrieved by the meager compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants are before this Court challenging the impugned judgment and award.

5. It is vehement contention of learned counsel for the appellants/claimants that the Tribunal has committed an error by not taking correct income for assessment of compensation so also on the other heads suitable compensation is not awarded and hence seeks enhancement of the compensation by allowing the appeal.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company contends that the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation. As no proof of income is produced, notional income is taken for assessment and on other heads. He also contends that there is no requirement of interference at the hands of this Court and on these grounds he seeks for dismissal of the appeal.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants- claimants and learned counsel for respondent-Insurance Company. - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:3168 MFA No. 962 of 2021

8. It is not disputed that the accident occurred on

10.12.2016. When the deceased was a pillion rider on the motor cycle along with the rider Venkatesha he met with an accident due to the rash and negligent riding by the rider of the motor cycle leading to the injuries and succumbed to said injuries. In order to establish and prove this aspect, Exs.P.1 to P.8 which are the Police records clearly exhibits the negligence as such FIR and charge sheet is laid against the rider of the motor cycle.

9. Now coming to the aspect of age, avocation and income, the deceased was aged 27 years as on the date of occurrence of accident and the appropriate multiplier is "17" which is correctly calculated by the Tribunal and the same does not call for interference. The deceased being bachelor 50% is deducted towards his personal expenses which is rightly calculated and the same is also not interfered. (a) The point for interference in this appeal would be assessment of the income, as the notional income chart of the Legal Services Authority prescribes Rs.9500/- per month and the same is taken as against Rs.8,000/- awarded by the - 7 - NC: 2024:KHC:3168 MFA No. 962 of 2021 Tribunal. Hence, the income shall be taken as Rs.13,300/- per month (Rs.9,500/- + 40%). Hence, loss of dependency would be Rs.13,56,600/- (Rs.6650 x 12 x 17) as against Rs.11,42,400/- awarded by the tribunal. (b) The Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, which does not call for interference. However, 10% escalation for one block period requires to be awarded, which would be Rs.3,000/-, in all Rs.33,000/-. (c) Towards consortium no amount is awarded by the Tribunal. As there are two dependents, each would be entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680, which has been subsequently followed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram and others, reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130. Hence, Rs.40,000/- per head with an escalation of 10% is awarded under this head which would be Rs.88,000/- (Rs.40,000 x 2 x 10). Medical - 8 - NC: 2024:KHC:3168 MFA No. 962 of 2021 expenses of Rs.92,170/- which is awarded by the Tribunal is not interfered. (d) In view of the above, the claimants would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.15,69,770/- as against Rs.12,64,570/- as mentioned in the table below: Heads Amount in Rs. Loss of dependency 13,56,600-00 Loss of consortium Loss of Estate and Transportation of expenses charges miscellaneous expenses funeral 88,000-00 33,000-00 Medical expenses 92,170-00 TOTAL 15,69,770-00

9. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed; ii) The judgment and award dated 03.06.2019 passed by the I Additional Small Causes Judge and MACT, Bangalore (SCCH-11) in MVC.No.5710/2017 modified; - 9 - NC: 2024:KHC:3168 MFA No. 962 of 2021 iii) The claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.15,69,770/- as against Rs.12,64,570/- with interest @ 9% p.a. iv) Enhanced compensation shall carry interest @ 6% which shall be paid within a period of four weeks from date of receipt of copy of this order. v) The delay of 206 days however would not carry interest. v) The enhanced compensation shall be disbursed in favour of the appellants/claimants in proportionate share stipulated as per the award of the Tribunal vi) All other terms and conditions stipulated by the Tribunal in its order is retained. vii) Registry is directed to transmit the original records to the jurisdictional Tribunal. Sd/- JUDGE RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44