Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1220 (KAR)

Lokesh v. United India Insurance Co. , Ltd.

2013-10-25

N.K.PATIL, R.B.BUDIHAL

body2013
Judgment : N.K. Patil, J. 1. This appeal by the appellants-claimants is arising out of the impugned judgment and award dated 14/01/2011 passed in MVC No.1239/2010, by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-18), (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal' for short), for enhancement of compensation, on the ground that a sum of Rs.3,33,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under different heads, with interest at 6% per annum against the claim of Rs.25,00,000/-, on account of the death the deceased Sri. Vishwas, in the road traffic accident is inadequate. 2. In brief, the facts of the case are: The appellant Nos.1 and 2 are the parents, appellant No. 3 is the brother of the deceased Sri.Vishwas. They filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation against the respondents, on account of the death of the deceased in the road traffic accident, contending that, on 5.2.2010 at about 8.45 a.m., deceased was riding motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA.51.K.9269 to go to Shirdi Sai Engineering College on left side of the road by observing traffic rules and when he came near Adadevanahalli, Chandapura, Anekal Taluk, at that time, the driver of Tata Ace bearing No.KA.51.6257 came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against the motorcycle. Due to which, both rider and pillion rider fell down on ground. Immediately, they were shifted to Sparsha Hospital and treated in ICU and deceased died on account of the injuries sustained by him. 3. It is the further case of the appellants that, deceased was aged about 21 years, hale and healthy prior to the accident and an engineering student studying in BE. Due to his untimely death, appellant Nos. 1 and 2 have lost their son, who was their future hopes and security, apart from mental shock and agony and appellant No. 3 is deprived of the love and affection of his brother. 4. 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.3,33,000/- under different heads, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till its deposit. 5. 4. 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.3,33,000/- under different heads, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till its deposit. 5. Being dis-satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants have presented this appeal, for enhancement of compensation. 6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned counsel for Insurer. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that, the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-per month and the reasoning given by the Tribunal in para-12 of the judgment cannot be sustained and is liable to be modified by re- assessing just and reasonable income of the deceased. To substantiate his submission, he submitted that deceased was aged about 21 years, an engineering student and therefore, his income may be reassessed at Rs.6,000/- per month. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified. 8. As against this, learned counsel for the Insurer inter-alia, contended and substantiated that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file and therefore, it does not call for interference. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and after perusing the materials available on record, including the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the only point that arises for our consideration is: Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable? 10. The occurrence of the accident and resultant death of the deceased are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that deceased was aged about 21 years, hale and healthy prior to the accident, studying in Engineering course and the dependants are his parents and brother. The Tribunal, has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month which is on lower and it needs to be re-assessed. Therefore, having regard to the age, qualification of the deceased and the year of the accident, we re-assess his income at Rs.5,000/- per month. The Tribunal, has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month which is on lower and it needs to be re-assessed. Therefore, having regard to the age, qualification of the deceased and the year of the accident, we re-assess his income at Rs.5,000/- per month. Out of which, if 50% (Rs.2,500/-) is deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased since he was a bachelor, his net income comes to Rs.2,500/- per month. The Tribunal has adopted Multiplier of 15' taking the age of the younger parent of the deceased-mother since he was a bachelor which is just and proper and we accept the same. Therefore, we re-determine the loss of dependency at Rs.4,50,000/- (Rs.2,500/- x 12 x 15) instead of Rs.2,70,000/- awarded by the Tribunal and accordingly, it is awarded. 11. However, a sum of Rs.45,000/- and Rs.23,000/-awarded by the Tribunal towards conventional heads, such as, loss of love and affection, loss of estate and transportation and funeral expenses and towards medical expenses is just and proper and therefore, it does not call for interference. . In all, the appellants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.5,18,000/- instead of Rs.3,33,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. There would be an enhancement of Rs.1,85,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization. 12. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 14/01/2011 passed in MVC No.1239/2010, by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH18), is hereby modified, awarding the compensation of Rs.1,85,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization, in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.1,85,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Immediately on such deposit by the Insurer, out of the enhanced compensation of Rs.1,85,000/-, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-with proportionate interest shall be invested in Fixed Deposit, in the name of the appellant No.2, in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank, for a period of ten years and renewable by another ten years, with liberty reserved to her to withdraw the interest accrued on it, periodically. The remaining sum of Rs.85,000/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the appellant Nos.1 and 2 in equal proportion, immediately. Draw the award, accordingly.