Back
2015 Supreme(Kar) 925
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
C.R. Kumaraswamy, J.
Oriental Insurance Company Limited - Petitioner
Versus
Mallika and Ors. - Respondents
Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 48 of 2015 (MV) connected with Miscellaneous First Appeal Cross Objection No. 21 of 2015
Decided on : 8-7-2015
A. Ravishankar, Guruprasad B.R. and Smt. Sandhya Rao P., Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reasonableness of the compensation awarded, based on the assessment of the deceased's income and the appropriate multiplier for loss of dependency.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation for Motor Accident - Section 173(1) - MVC No. 1923 of 2012 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the evidence presented, including the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and relevant documents such as FIR, post-mortem report, and driving license. The court also considered legal principles related to compensation calculation, including loss of dependency and future prospects. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the deceased's income, the appropriate multiplier for loss of dependency, and the reasonableness of the compensation awarded.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a fatal motor accident where an autorickshaw driver was killed in a collision with a bus. The claimants, including the deceased's wife and children, sought compensation for the loss.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the driver of the bus was negligent, leading to the fatal accident. The court analyzed the evidence and upheld the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal, dismissing both the appeal and cross-objections.
Issues: The main issues included the assessment of the deceased's income, the appropriate multiplier for loss of dependency, and the reasonableness of the compensation awarded.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the income assessed by the Tribunal was reasonable, and the compensation awarded was just and reasonable based on the evidence and circumstances of the case.
Final Decision: The appeal and cross-objections were dismissed, and the amount in deposit was to be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal.
C.R. Kumaraswamy, J. - This miscellaneous first appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and award dated 17-9-2014 passed in MVC No. 1923 of 2012 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada, awarding compensation of Rs.15,50,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.
2. This MFA CROB No. 21 of 2015 is filed under Order 41, Rule 22 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, against the judgment and award dated 17-9-2014 passed in MVC No. 1923 of 2012 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil judge, Member, MACT, Mangalore, D.K., partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
3. The case of the claimants in the Claims Tribunal is as under:
That on 30-9-2012, Keshava was proceeding by driving his autorickshaw bearing Reg. No. KA-19-D-5100 from his house slowly and when he reached Nethravathi Bridge at about 9.30 a.m., at that time a bus bearing registration No. KA-19-M-9122 driven by its driver with high speed, and in a rash and negligent manner came from Mangalore side and dashed against the autorickshaw. Consequently, Keshava succumbed to injuries. The deceased Keshava was hale and healthy at the time of the accident. He was aged about 44 years. He was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. The claimant 1 is wife of deceased who lost her husband and claimants 2 and 3 are children. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing No. KA-19-M-9122 by its driver.
4. In the Tribunal, respondent 1 remained absent and he was placed ex parte. Respondent 2 has filed objection statement.
5. The Claims Tribunal relied on the evidence of P.W. 1 and Ex. P. 1-FIR and complaint, Ex. P. 2-Notice under Section 160 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Ex. P. 3-copy of spot mahazar, Ex. P. 4-copy of post-mortem report, Ex. P. 5-copy of charge-sheet, Ex. P. 6-copy of IMV report, Ex. P. 7-copy of spot sketch, Ex. P. 8-sketch, Ex. P. 9-Survival Certificate, Ex. P. 10-Driving Licence, and came to a conclusion that the driver of the bus bearing No. KA-19-M-9122 came in a rash and negligent manner and caused this accident.
6. The Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation as under:
| SI. No. | Particulars | Amount (in Rs.) |
| 1. | Loss of dependency | 10,80,000 |
| 2. | Loss of love and affection | 1,50,000 |
| 3. | Loss of consortium | 1,00,000 |
| 4. | Funeral expenses and transportation expenses | 20000 |
| 5. | Loss of future prospects | 2,00,000 |
|
| TOTAL | 15,50,000 |
7. The interest awarded on the compensation amount is at 6% per annum.
8. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant as well as learned Counsel for the respondents and also perused the material placed before this Court.
9. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits as under:
That the Claims Tribunal has awarded huge compensation of Rs.15,50,000/- by considering the monthly income of the deceased at Rs,9,000/- per month. The claimants have not produced any documentary evidence to prove income of the deceased. The claimants have not produced income tax returns. The Claims Tribunal has erred in adopting the multiplier of `15' as against permissible `14'; the Tribunal has erred in granting Rs.2,00,000/- towards `loss of future prospects' and Rs.1,00,000/- towards `loss of consortium' and a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards `loss of love and affection'. Therefore, learned Counsel for the appellant seeks to reduce the compensation amount.
10. The claimants have preferred cross-objections. Learned Counsel for the cross-objectors submits as under:
That the deceased was owner-cum-driver of the autorickshaw. He was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. However, the Claims Tribunal has arbitrarily considered the income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- per month. He furth
