Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1199 (KAR)

H. T. Honnappa v. H. V. Ramakrishna

2013-10-22

B.S.INDRAKALA, N.K.PATIL

body2013
Judgment : N.K. Patil, J. 1. Though the matter is posted for admission, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal, we have taken up the matter for consideration on merits. 2. This appeal by the claimants is directed against the impugned judgment and award, dated 11.1.2010 passed in MVC No.515/2006 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mysore. 3. By its judgment and award, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/-with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization as against the claim made by the appellants, on account of the death of the deceased Mr. H.H. Kishore in the road traffic accident. Since the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate, the present appeal is filed seeking enhancement. 4. The brief facts of the case on hand are, appellant Nos. 1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased H.H. Kishore, who was aged about 19 years as on the date of accident. They filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that, at about 3:10 P.M, on 17.5.2006, when the deceased was returning from burial ground along with his friend on motor bike bearing No.KA-09 EF 2948, on MRC Road near Ursu Jamakan Club Gate, he met with an accident on account of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of lorry bearing No.KA 11 5544 which came from the opposite direction in high speed and dashed against the motor bike. Due to the impact, he fell down and died at the spot. 5. It is the case of the appellants that the deceased was a computer operator earning Rs..6,000/- per month; was hale and healthy prior to the accident and that the deceased was the only source of livelihood and the entire family was dependent on him and that on account of his untimely death, they are deprived of his love and affection and to see his future prospects as he was the only son and it has affected the social and economic condition of the family. Therefore, they were constrained to file the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs..25,50,000/-. Therefore, they were constrained to file the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs..25,50,000/-. When the matter came up before the Tribunal, after considering the material on record the Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part awarding a sum of Rs.25,000/-with interest at 6% p.m from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Being dissatisfied with the same, the appellants have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 6. We have gone through the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal and heard the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent/insurance company. 7. After hearing and upon careful perusal of the papers available on file, what emerges is that the occurrence of accident and death of the deceased due to the accident are not in dispute. The deceased was aged about 19 years and was a computer operator getting a salary of Rs..6,000/- per month but no credible document is produced to that effect nor has examined the employer where he was working, but this does not take away their legitimate entitlement as rightly contended by them in the memorandum of grounds. The Tribunal ought to have taken note of the same and determined some reasonable income of the deceased having regard to the age, avocation and year of the accident on the other hand, has proceeded to commit an error, resulting in miscarriage of justice in not awarding any compensation towards loss of dependency and the compensation awarded under conventional head is also inadequate and calls for redetermination. Having regard to the age of the deceased and his occupation, to meet the ends of justice and to safeguard the interest of both parties, we can safely assess his income at Rs..3,000/- per month as the accident has occurred in the year 2006 and as on the date of the accident as he was unmarried, if 50% of the income should be deducted towards personal expenses, the remaining sum comes to Rs..1,500/-per month. Further, since the deceased was a bachelor, the age of the younger parent has to be taken into consideration. In the case on hand, the mother of the deceased was younger and was aged about 37 years, as on the date of accident. Therefore, the proper multiplier applicable is 15', as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case ( 2009 ACJ 1298 ). In the case on hand, the mother of the deceased was younger and was aged about 37 years, as on the date of accident. Therefore, the proper multiplier applicable is 15', as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case ( 2009 ACJ 1298 ). Applying the same, we award a sum of Rs..2,70,000/- (Rs..1500/- x 12 x 15') towards loss of dependency. 8. Further, the Tribunal erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards conventional heads. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it fit and proper to award a sum of Rs.45,000/-towards conventional heads, viz. loss of love and affection, loss of estate, transportation and funeral expenses as against Rs.25,000/-awarded by Tribunal. Thus, the total compensation would come to Rs.3,15,000/-as against Rs.25,000/- awarded by Tribunal, with interest at 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization. 9. The reasoning given by the Tribunal for not awarding loss of dependency cannot be sustainable at any stretch of imagination in view of the fact that the 2nd appellant, who is none other than the mother of the deceased is dependant on the deceased and that he was the only son to her. Appellant No.1 is working in the Home Department. But second appellant, mother of the deceased is entitled to loss of dependency. This aspect has not been looked into nor considered nor appreciated by the Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the considered view that appellant No.2 is entitled for loss of dependency and accordingly, we have considered and awarded reasonable compensation as supra. 10. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the appeal filed by appellants is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 11.1.2010, passed in M.V.C.No.515/2006, by the I Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mysore, is hereby modified, awarding a sum of Rs.2,90,000/-, with interest at 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization, in addition to the compensation awarded by Tribunal. The 3rd respondent/Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.2,90,000/-, with interest thereon at 6% per annum, within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. The 3rd respondent/Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.2,90,000/-, with interest thereon at 6% per annum, within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. Immediately on such deposit by the Insurer, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be deposited in Fixed Deposit in the name of the second appellant/mother of the deceased, in any Nationalized/ Scheduled Bank, for a period of ten years, renewable for another five years, with liberty reserved to her to withdraw the periodical interest. Remaining sum of Rs.90,000/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the appellant Nos.1 and 2, in equal proportion, immediately on deposit by the 3rd respondent/insurer. Office to draw award, accordingly. Sri A. Ravi Shankar, learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company/3rd respondent is permitted to file his Vakalath within 4 weeks, if not already filed. Registry is directed to send a certified copy of this judgment and award to appellant Nos. 1 and 2/parties - in - person immediately.