Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1113 (KAR)

New India Assurance v. R. Umadevi

2010-10-26

H.S.KEMPANNA, N.K.PATIL

body2010
Judgment :- These two appeals arise out of the same impugned Judgment and Award dated 30.3.2005 passed in MVC No.4417/2003 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-V, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore City [hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’ for short]. 2. The Tribunal by its impugned Judgment and Award, awarded a sum of Rs.22,08,016/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit on account of the death of one L. Krishnappa in a road traffic accident as against Rs.60,00,000/- claimed by the claimants. The Insurer has presented MFA 6596/2005, contending that the quantum of compensation is dis-proportionate and is liable to be reduced substantially by modifying the impugned Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal. Whereas, the Claimants contending that, the quantum of compensation awarded is inadequate and it requires enhancement, have presented MFA.No.8279/2005. 3. The claimants are none other than the wife and son of the deceased L. Krishnappa, who died in the road traffic accident. Due to the serious injuries sustained in the road traffic accident that occurred at about 13.40 hours on 23.6.2003, when the deceased L. Krishnappa was in Scooter bearing registration No.MEJ-7813, on NH-4, Bangalore-Tumkur Road, waiting for signal near Jalahalli Cross, S.M. Circle, at that time, Lorry bearing registration No.AP-09-T-6285 came from back side in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against the deceased. Due to the impact, the deceased sustained multiple grievous injuries all over the body and succumbed to death. On account of the untimely death of deceased, the first claimant has lost her life partner, security and future and the second claimant being the son has lost his father’s love and affection. Therefore, they were constrained to file the claim petition under Section 166 of MV Act claiming compensation of Rs.60,00,000/-. 4. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. After assessing the oral and documentary evidence and other relevant material available on file, the Tribunal has allowed the petition in part, awarding a compensation of Rs.22,08,016/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Being dis-satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the Insurer and the claimants both felt necessitated to present these two appeals. 5. Being dis-satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the Insurer and the claimants both felt necessitated to present these two appeals. 5. The principal submission canvassed by the learned Counsel appearing for the Insurer at the outset is that, the Tribunal has committed a grave error much less material irregularity resulting in mis-carriage of justice in determining a just and reasonable entitlement, by taking the salary of the deceased without deducting the benefits availed by him towards Conveyance Allowance, Magazine allowance and shift allowance and professional tax. Therefore, he submitted that, after deducting all those additional benefits, the income of the deceased may be re-assessed and just and reasonable compensation may be awarded towards ‘Loss of Dependency’ and also under conventional heads by modifying the impugned Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal. 6. As against this, the learned Counsel appearing for the Claimants interalia submitted that, the Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding reasonable compensation towards ‘Loss of dependency’ and also under the ‘conventional heads’. Further, the Tribunal has failed to take into consideration the amount that would have been given as bonus during the life time of the deceased and therefore by adding the same reasonable compensation may be awarded towards ‘Loss of dependency’ by modifying the impugned Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal. 7. After hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the Insurer and the learned Counsel appearing for the claimants and after perusal of the impugned Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal, the only point that arise for consideration in these appeals are:- “Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side or is it just and reasonable?” 8. The occurrence of accident and the resultant death of deceased are not in dispute. The deceased was aged about 51 years working as Assistant Engineer in P.U.-2 Department at WIDIA (INDIA) Ltd., Tumkur Road, Bangalore and drawing a salary of Rs.22,812/- per month as per Ex P12. Out of which as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for the Insurer, the benefits such as Conveyance Allowance of Rs.800/-; magazine allowance of Rs.350/-; Shift allowance of Rs.425/- and professional tax of Rs.200/- shall have to be deducted, which amounts to Rs.1,775/-. Out of Rs.22,812/- as per Ex P12-Salary Certificate, if the above benefits are deducted, the net income comes to Rs.21,037/- per month. Out of Rs.22,812/- as per Ex P12-Salary Certificate, if the above benefits are deducted, the net income comes to Rs.21,037/- per month. Out of which, the income tax of Rs.2,208/-shall be deducted. The net monthly salary comes to Rs.18,829/-. Out of which 1/3rd is deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased, which is Rs.6,276/- per month. Then, the net income comes to Rs.12,553/- per month. The deceased was aged about 51 years. The proper multiplier applicable is 11, in the light of the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & another reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 . Accordingly, we re-determine ‘loss of dependency’ at Rs.16,56,996/- [Rs.12.553x12x11]. Accordingly, we award a sum of Rs.16,56,996/-towards ‘Loss of Dependency’. 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case referred above, we deem it fit to award compensation of Rs.45,000/- under Conventional heads. The break-ups are as follows: Towards Loss of Consortium Rs.10,000/- Towards Loss of Estate Rs.10,000/- Towards Loss of Love and Affection Rs.15,000/- Towards Transportation and funeral expenses Rs.10,000/- Total Rs.45,000/- 10. The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.17,01,996/- as against Rs.22,08,816/- awarded by the Tribunal. The reduced compensation comes to Rs.5,06,820/-. 11. For the foregoing reasons, we pass the following:-ORDER (i) appeal filed by the Insurer is allowed in part and the appeal filed by the claimants is dismissed as devoid of merits; (ii) The appellant-Insurer is directed to deposit the remaining compensation amount with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (iii) The apportionment of compensation ordered by the Tribunal proportionately gets reduced. (iv) The amount deposited by the Insurer shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal for payment forthwith. (v) Office to draw the award, accordingly.