G.B. Vishwanatha Rao Vs Sri T. Sandeep

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:19.10.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.7637/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶26

IN MFA.CROB NO. 78/2015

¶27

BETWEEN:

¶28

SRI. T. SANDEEP S/O THULASI RAM, AGED YEARS, 147, 21^ST CROSS, 2^ND MAIN, AGRAHARA LAYOUT, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-560 064.

¶29

...CROSS OBJECTOR

¶30

(BY SRI. BHEERAJ S.N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K. SHASHI KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:24228 MFA No. 1275 of 2014 C/W MFA.CROB No. 78 of 2015

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

AND:

¶34

G.B. VISHWANATHA RAO SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS,

¶35

SHAKUNTALA BAI, W/O LATE G B.VISHWANATHA RAO, AGED 73 YEARS,

¶36

UMASHANKAR RAO G V S/O LATE G B VISHWANATHA RAO, AGED 52 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.507, SHIVAKRUPA, 17^TH CROSS, 4^TH PHASE, J.P. NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 078.

¶37

...RESPONDENTS

¶38

(BY SMT. A.R. SHARADAMBA, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. INDHUMATHI S R.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

¶39

THIS MFA CROB IN MFA NO.1275/2014 FILED U/O 41 RULE 22 R/W SEC.173(1) OF MVC ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED19.10.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.7637/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.1,53,200/- WITH INTEREST @ 8% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE REALIZATION.

¶40

THIS APPEAL AND MFA.CROB, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶41

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

¶42

4 -

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:24228 MFA No. 1275 of 2014 C/W MFA.CROB No. 78 of 2015

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶46

Both the appeals arise out of judgment and award dated 19.10.2013 passed by the XIII Additional Small Causes Judge, Member, MACT, Bengaluru, (for short 'the Tribunal') in MVC.No.7637/2012.

¶47

The claimants filed MFA.No.1275/2014 seeking enhancement of the compensation and owner of the vehicle filed MFA.No.78/2015 for re-consideration of the compensation amount.

¶48

With consent of both the parties,

¶49

MFA.Crob.No.78/2015 is taken up for final disposal along with MFA.No.1275/2014.

¶50

The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

¶51

The brief facts of the case before the Tribunal are that, on 07.11.2012, at about 12.15 noon, when the deceased was crossing the road in front of Basavanagudi traffic police station, Bengaluru. At that time, a rider of

¶52

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:24228 MFA No. 1275 of 2014 C/W MFA.CROB No. 78 of 2015

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-04-HH-7099 came in a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased. As a result, the deceased G.B. Vishwanath Rao fell down and sustained grievous injuries and while undergoing treatment in the hospital, he succumbed to injuries on 08.11.2012.

¶55

It was further the case of the claimant that the

¶56

deceased was aged 81 years at the time of accident. He was engaged in real estate business and was earning Rs.8,000/per month. The claimants are his wife and son. They have filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.10 lakhs.

¶57

Respondent is the owner of the vehicle. Respondent in its written statement denied the contentions of the claimant. He has further contended that accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased. The deceased was deaf and could not hear the horn of the vehicle. The deceased unmindfully tried to cross the road, due to the said reason the accident occurred. He was aged 81 years. He

¶58

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:24228 MFA No. 1275 of 2014 C/W MFA.CROB No. 78 of 2015

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

was unable to do any work or earn any income. With these

¶61

reasons, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

¶62

The Tribunal framed necessary issues based on

¶63

the contentions of both the parties. The Tribunal recorded the evidence.

¶64

The claimant in support of their case examined two witnesses as PW-1 and 2 and marked Exs.P1 to P17. The respondent marked two witnesses as RWs-1 and 2 and marked documents as Ex.R1 to R3.

¶65

The Tribunal after hearing both the parties and appreciating the evidence available on record held that accident occured due to negligence of rider of the motor cycle and Tribunal awarded the following amount of

¶66

compensation:

¶67

Sl.No.	Particulars	Amount(in Rs.)
1.	Loss of consortium to petitioner No.1	50,000
2.	Loss of love and affection to petitioner No.2	25,000
3.	Loss of estate to petitioner Nos.1 and 2	50,000
4.	Medical expenditure	13,200

¶68

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:24228 MFA No. 1275 of 2014 C/W MFA.CROB No. 78 of 2015

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

Transportation of dead body, last 20,000 rituals and funeral expenses Total Rs.1,53,200/-

¶71

The claimants submitted that the Tribunal ought to have awarded the compensation under the heads loss of dependency and the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads are meager. The deceased was pensioner and retired employee from Police department and his pass book revealed that his last drawn pension was Rs.17,000/-. The claimants are wife and son of the deceased. Hence, prayed to enhance the compensation.

¶72

The contention of respondent in MFA cross objection is that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side. The deceased was aged about 81 years and he was not earning any income. Only on the basis of assumption and presumption, the Tribunal has awarded the compensation. Therefore, prayed to recalculate the said compensation and set aside the judgment passed by the Tribunal.

¶73

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:24228 MFA No. 1275 of 2014 C/W MFA.CROB No. 78 of 2015

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

I have gone through the materials available on

¶76

record.

¶77

The fact of the accident is not seriously disputed.

¶78

The respondents contended that the deceased was elderly and hearing-impaired, and that the accident occurred due to his own negligence. However, the Tribunal, upon appreciating the evidence on record, held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle rider. Upon reappreciation of the evidence, I find no reason to interfere with this finding.

¶79

The claimants did not plead about the pension received by the deceased; however, during the course of evidence, they produced a passbook showing that the deceased received a monthly pension of Rs.17,000/- in November 2012. As this was not pleaded, the Tribunal did not consider it. Had he survived for few more years, he could have accumulated the pension drawn and that could have benefited the claimants. Due to his death in the accident, the claimants have lost said benefit. Despite this, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.50,000

¶80

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:24228 MFA No. 1275 of 2014 C/W MFA.CROB No. 78 of 2015

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

towards loss of estate. Considering these facts, it needs to be enhanced.

¶83

In terms of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex

¶84

Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors¹ as well as on the basis of the judgment in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

¶85

Vs. NANU RAM @ CHUHRU RAM² , compensation under the notional head has to be recalculated.

¶86

The notional income of the deceased is taken as Rs.17,000/- as discussed above. He left behind him two dependants and he was aged above 81 years. Considering the unique facts and circumstances of the case, 50% of his income is to be deducted towards personal expenses. Keeping in mind the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarala Verma vs. DTC³ , multiplier applicable in this case is '5'. On the basis of the said figures, the compensation under

¶87

1 (2017) 16 SCC 680

¶88

2 (2018) 18 SCC 130

¶89

3 AIR 2009 SC 3104

¶90

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:24228 MFA No. 1275 of 2014 C/W MFA.CROB No. 78 of 2015

¶91

HC-KAR

¶92

head 'loss of dependency' is re-assessed. With these figures mentioned above, compensation under the head loss of dependency is assessed as Rs.17,000/2 = 8,500 x12x5 =5,10,000/-.

¶93

Similarly the compensation is also assessed under the conventional heads.

¶94

The insurer supported the impugned judgment and submitted that there was no reasons to interfere in findings of the Tribunal.

¶95

The occurrence of accident, death of the

¶96

deceased, coverage of insurance are not in dispute in this case.

¶97

Accordingly, on appreciation of the materials available on record, the following amount of compensation is awarded:

¶98

Sl.No.	Particulars	Amount (in Rs.)
1.	Loss of dependency	5,10,000
	(Rs.17,000/2=8,500x12x5)
2.	Loss of consortium	80,000
3.	Loss of funeral expenses	15,000

¶99

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:24228 MFA No. 1275 of 2014 C/W MFA.CROB No. 78 of 2015

¶100

HC-KAR

¶101

4.	Loss ofestate	15,000
	Total	6,20,000/-
	Amount awarded by the Tribunal	1,53,200/-
	Enhancement	4,66,800/-
	Rounded off	Rs.4,67,000/-

¶102

The claimant is entitled to enhancement of Rs.4,95,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of filing of the petition till its realization. Admittedly, the respondent No.1 is liable to pay the same.

¶103

In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

¶104

ORDER

¶105

i) The MFA.No.1275/2014 is allowed in part and MFA.CROB.No.78/2015 is dismissed .

¶106

ii) The judgment and award dated 19.10.2013, passed by the XIII Additional Small Causes Judge, Member, MACT, Bengaluru, in MVC No.7637/2012 is modified.

¶107

iii) The claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.4,67,000/with

¶108