AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.L. Manjunath, J.—These two appeals are arising out the judgment and award dated 1st August, 2014 passed by MACT, Hinyuru in MVC No. 238/2012.
MFA No. 7551/2014 is filed by the insurance company challenging the liability and quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the connected appeal - MFA No. 8476/2014 is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded to them by the Tribunal. Therefore, these two matters are heard together.
The admitted facts are that claimant No. 1 - Hemalath is the mother and claimant No. 2 - Darshana is the younger sister of the deceased Rakesh. On 12.6.2012, Rakesh by riding his motor cycle bearing registration No. KA-16-R-7599 was proceeding to Yaladakere village and when he was near Nagendrappa''s land in Hulikunte village on SH-19 road, Hinyur Taluk, Chitradurga District, a lorry bearing registration No. KA-07-4817 was coming from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the motor cycle of Rakesh as a result of which Rakesh and pillion rider - Keshavamurthy succumbed to the injuries The deceased was working as a Village Accountant in the Revenue Department in the State of Karnataka getting a salary of Rs. 15,000/- per month. Therefore, the mother and his younger sister, as the dependents of the deceased, lodged a claim petition.
The Tribunal considering the evidence led in by the parties came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry which has been insured with the appellant/insurance company and came to the conclusion that the deceased was getting a salary of Rs. 14,168/- per month as per the salary certificate Ex. P. 14. Considering the age of the victim, 50% of his income was added towards his future prospects and assessed his income at Rs. 21,252/-. Since he was maintaining his mother and younger sister, who was unmarried, deducted 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased and assessed the loss of dependency at Rs. 14,168/- per month and by applying the multiplier of 12, awarded a sum of Rs. 20,40,192/- towards loss of dependency and Rs. 85,000/- under conventional heads. Thus a sum of Rs. 21,25,192/- has been awarded as compensation by the Tribunal.
It is the contention of the insurance company that the Tribunal has committed an error in saddling the liability on it even though the vehicle has been insured in the name of one Shoban Babu, therefore, the liability could not have been saddled on the insurance company. It is also contended that applying of multiplier of 12 considering the age of the mother as 47 years by the Tribunal as incorrect.
It is the contention of the claimants that since the mother was aged 47 years as on the date of the accident as per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, the proper multiplier to be applied was 13 and on the contrary, multiplier of 12 has been applied. It is also their case that the compensation awarded under conventional heads is also on the lower side. Therefore, they request for enhancement of the compensation.
Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, the points that arise for our consideration in these appeals are:
i) Whether the liability saddled on the insurance company has to be satisfied?
ii) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires to be enhanced or not?
So far as the first point is concerned, as per the statement of objections filed by the insurance company, the insurance company has not raised a contention that the policy holder has not been arrayed as a party in the claim petition and for the first time, it is canvassed by the learned Counsel for the appellant/insurance company. As per the admission of the parties, the lorry in question was owned by the 1st respondent. Merely because the policy was not transferred from the name of Shoban Babu, it cannot be a ground for us to dismiss the petition of the claimant on the ground that Shoban Babu is not made a party. If the lorry has been purchased by the 1st respondent, even if the policy is not transferred, the appellant/insurance which did not raise such a contention before the Tribunal cannot be permitted to raise such contention for the first time in appeal. Therefore, point No. 1 is answered against the appellant/insurance company.
In so far as second point is concerned, admittedly the deceased was working as a Revenue Inspector in the Department of Revenue of the State of Karnataka. Ex. P. 14 - the salary certificate discloses the salary being received by the deceased. Therefore, we do not find any error committed by the Tribunal in assessing the income of the deceased. We have also noticed that, if the age of the mother is 47 years, the Tribunal was required to apply the multiplier of 13 instead of 12. In the circumstances, we have to award a sum of 1,70,016/- under the head Loss of Dependency.
We have also seen that the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 85,000/- under conventional heads. Since the accident is of the year 2012, we are of the considered view, that the compensation awarded under conventional heads requires to be enhanced by a further sum of Rs. 80,000/-.
Thus in all the claimants are entitled for an enhanced compensation of Rs. 2,50,016/- and the same is rounded off to Rs. 2,50,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.
In the result, MFA No. 7551/2014 is dismissed and MFA No. 8476/2014 is allowed. The claimants, who are appellants in MFA No. 8476/2014 are entitled for an enhanced compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.
Out of the enhanced compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/-, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- with accrued interest shall be deposited in the name of the mother for a period of 5 years in any of the Nationalised/Scheduled Bank and she is entitled to withdraw the periodical interest as and when it accrues. The remaining sum of Rs. 50,000/- together with interest is ordered to be released to the claimants.
Office to draw the award accordingly.
Sri Suresh K., advocate is permitted to file his Vakalath for respondent No. 2 in MFA No. 8476/2014 within 4 weeks from today.
Amount if any in deposit shall be transferred to the Tribunal.