IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV

AND

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.KRISHNA BHAT

M.F.A.NO. 202060/2015 (MV)

BETWEEN:

• 1. Suma W/o Sanjay Angadi, Age: 28 years, Occ: House Hold Work,
• 2. Preksha D/o Sanjay Angadi, Age: 03 years, M/G by Appellant No.1

Both are R/o B.D. Ankalagi Building, Upstairs, K.H.B. Colony, Solapur Road, Vijayapura-586101.

… Appellants

(By Sri Sanganagouda V. Biradar, Advocate)

AND:

• 1. The Managing Director, B.M.T.C., Central Office, Bengaluru-02.
• 2. Santhamma W/o Mahesh Angadi, Age: 58 years, Occ: Nil,

R/o Sadashiv Nagar, Banhatti, Tal.: Jamakhandi, Dist. Bagalkot-587101.

… Respondents

(Sri Subhash Mallapur, Advocate for R1; R2 served)

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173 (1) of MV Act, praying to allow this appeal and enhance the compensation as claimed in the claim petition by modifying the Judgment and Award dated 06.07.2015 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT No.V at Vijayapura in M.V.C.No.1556/2013.

This appeal coming on for Final Hearing, this day, P.KRISHNA BHAT J., delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a claimants' appeal calling in question the correctness of the judgment and award dated 06.07.2015 in MVC No.1556/2013 by the learned Prl. Senior Civil Judge & MACT-V, Bijapur.

2. Claim petition proceeded on the averments that on 29.08.2013 at 11.15 a.m. when deceased Sanjay along with one of his friends was near DTDC courier, Chamarajpet, Bengaluru, a BMTC bus bearing registration No.KA-01/F-4955 came in a rash and negligent manner and in high speed and knocked down the deceased Sanjay resulting in his death. The claim petition filed by his dependents was allowed by awarding a compensation of Rs.22,60,000/- with interest thereon at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment.

3. The only contention advanced by the learned counsel for the claimants is that even though salary certificate as per Ex.P.10 was produced and proved through PW.3, H.R. of the company which showed that deceased was drawing a monthly emoluments of Rs.15,191/- and out of the same, only permissible deduction was professional tax of Rs.200/- per month, learned Tribunal has taken his income at Rs.14,211/ and therefore, loss of dependency quantified by the learned Tribunal is a lesser sum than what the dependents were entitled to receive. He therefore,

3

submitted that the award is required to be modified by suitably enhancing the compensation.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent-insurer vehemently contends that the deceased was not in any regular employment and he was holding a precarious position in a communication system company and there was every chance of his employment being terminated on account of company deciding to shrink their staff strength which is a common place occurrence nowadays. He also submitted that at the time of passing of the award, the father of the deceased had died and resultantly number of dependents being only three, learned Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal and living expenses. He, therefore, submitted that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is just and reasonable and there is no ground made out to enhance the same.

5. Perusal of the records disclose that deceased was a young man aged about 27 years. He was employed by Adecco India Pvt. Ltd. which was in the field of Telesonic Networks and his designation was as Jumpering Technician as could be seen from Ex.P.10 which is a Pay Slip. It is also disclosed therefrom that his employment was registered for the purpose of remittance to Provident Fund Account No. KN/BN/34272/628211. The Pay Slip also shows that the employer was deducting Professional Tax and Provident Fund amount from the monthly salary. Ex.P.10 is proved through the H.R. of the company who was examined as PW.3. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that his gross salary can be safely taken at Rs.15,000/- after deducting professional tax amount and rounding it off to the nearest whole figure of Rs.15,000/-. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the insurer since the father of the deceased had died at the time when the award was passed, we feel it just to take 1/3rd as the deduction to be made from the monthly income of the deceased towards his personal and living expenses having regard to the fact that surviving dependents were only three members. The appropriate multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased is 17 (Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation - [2009 (6) SCC 121] Further 40% of the monthly income is required to be added towards loss of future prospects by following the decision in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in 2017 ACJ 2700. Accordingly, loss of dependency is required to be re-worked as follows:

Rs.15,000 – 5000 (1/3rd ) =10,000 + 4000 (40%) = 14,000 x 12 x 17=28,56,000/-

6. Learned Tribunal has already awarded a sum of Rs.21,74,283/- towards loss of dependency. Accordingly, the enhanced compensation that the claimants are entitled to is Rs.6,81,717/-. This enhanced compensation shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment. Hence, the following:

ORDER

The above appeal is allowed in part. In modification of the judgment and award dated 06.07.2015 in MVC No.1556/2013 the compensation is enhanced by Rs.6,81,717/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment.

Amount in deposit in MFA CROB No.200056/2016 shall be transmitted to the MACT forth with.

TCR shall be transmitted to the MACT forth with.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE

NSP