Mr G S Rajashekhar vs Mr D Harsha on 23 October, 2010

BETVVEEN:

L

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 2342" DAY OF OCTOBER, 2010

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAWAD RA%f_lj1'!Vi*S[_~ 

MFA No. 11103 OF 2007(MV)_ '  %

MR G S RAJASHEKHAR
S/O LATE G MALLAPPA _ _
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS '  

SMT M MANIULA ,  '

W/O G S RAJASHEKHAR  , V

AGED ABOUT 47 YRS» -     

BOTH ARE R/AT NO.75-8,SUBHIKSH'A;~. S 

11"' BLOCK, -2"?" STAGE .jNAGA"RABHAVI'

BDA LAYO,'U"r,~B_ANG=ALQRE ----"~S60f'-07__2_T

   ~  _    APPELLANTS

(By SRIFV"RALRANA,i1§AOLr.,,)  

MR D' HARSHA '  S 
S/O LATE D.ATTAT'REYA
R/AT NO.1425'2ND GROSS,
_~B'EHINOV MUT'TLI.RAT'A TEMPLE ROAD,
'PRA'S'HAN."[_"H NAGAR, T DASARAHALLI

A :. "BANGAL_O|f'{E._57

* , T!4lE'Vb7iV'}|5;'i\JA'e§{§R

'--.QRIEN'TAi.L INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
GBOH-.7 PEENYA B O NO.20
IOOET ROAD, JALAHALLI CROSS

" ' C.HOKKASANDRA, BANGALORE - 560 057

".RESPONDENTS

 (BY SRI M ARUN PONNAPPA, ADV., FOR R2)

>§<*=+E

dkilyx



to

MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 22.1.2007 PASSED IN
MVC NO. 2792/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE XIX ADDL.
IUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMsER,,.fMACT,
METROPOLITIAN AREA, BANGALORE, (SC_C_HV.N"O;I7'),

PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITiION~~.',jg---..FOR"_
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHA.l$l_C"E_MEil\i'T' OF 

COMPENSATION.   

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION 

DAY,THE COURT DELIVERED  FOLLO'WING;,é; 2 " '
3UE)"(3!§l"E!\,l,1' A V. V

Dissatisfied clairrian't" is in aj_ppéa_Ig'vagai»nst the Judgment

and award in MVC No. :2N?v92[200_o,deiteci22201-2007 on the

file of learne.d'-.,Ju}dg_e, S_.:C(jIlV-ll'-':12.i7','"Banga|Ore, seeking

enhanCe__rrient,.V 

 if  for admission. Heard the

learned Coiireisel Snit.O'~!_<Oalp'OOana for appellant and the learned

"OV'~...c0u'ns'eI:,.\~-t.Mi=,A.Aru'n""*P0nnappa, for respondent -- insurance

 ;ft..is":admitted and taken up for final disposal by

Con_sVent._ Of"  

O "  3," The Contextual facts are:

The appellant lodged claim before the MACT seeking

compensation from the respondents regarding death of

at»



Karthik, a youngster aged 27 years, in a motor vehicle
accident involving motor cycle bearing registration No. KA-

02 EG--4-4 and bus bearing registration No. KA--O5 B--12.'71. on

Magadé -- Bangalore Road, near l-luliyarammaf_;Vte_rnjp,l:é,y

Machohalli gate. They alleged negligence 

the passenger bus and thus held 

culpable and actionable negligence. T'

4. The claim ,--was  ..the:...reSEDondents,
which lead to framing of'relevantVg)oi:nVtsf'lfo'rconsideration by
the Tribunal.  claimant No.1
tendered   documents while

respondents 'but. relied on Policy at Ex.R1.

 material proposition in the

pleadings of.tne_pa'rtée's and evidence on record, the Tribunal

:hel_cl' iall'°poi_nts_ in affirmative and in favour of claimants and

Al"'aVll'o'wed-:Vth.e_  granting to them in all Rs.5,34,000/-- as

corf:--pen,_satilo'"n as against their claém of Rs.20 lakhs. Being

 .V_fldissatis'f--ied with it they are in this appeal.

6. The learned counsel Smt. Kalpana, for the

appellants would contend that death of Karthik in motor

NV



vehicle accident on 1203-2006 is result of negligent driving
by the driver of the bus having been accepted by the

Tribunai, the Tribunal had sadclied them with  of

discharging this award. She wouid submit  

record establishes that Karthik, victim of  was.

permanently employed in Toyota 

Private Limited, incorporated'u_nder"'C'.ompani'esVV.Act, 

gross salary of Rs.11,000/~.  'ba_chelo.r'i.and was
contributing entire  "xfor their
maintenance. The appeiyla.nts.whVo on him are
now renderediv Zijconsetiuence of ioss of

dependency. 

 '   to the fact that the salary

shown in u'E'xV.%P7 at.' of Rs.10,497/- but has been

 ._unji.;s'3tifiafbiyV%_ redu"ced_...by the Tribunal deducting the amount,

which.are"nvotjdeductibie. She would further contend that

Trihpunai haistaairen incotne of the deceased at Rs.6,466/~, as

'cagainst;x'i?~s.10,497/- and again subjected it to 50%

'*ilfdedu'ctions, consequent to this erroneous grant of

 Rs;.S,34,000/-- is awarded as against the amount of Rs.12

 lakhs, to which they are entitled.

W



8. The learned counsel Mr. Arun Ponnappa, for
respondent -- insurance company would not dispute the

position of law relating to fixing the loss of de;:iende.n'cy.

Reference could be made to the decision of  

in case of SARLA \/ERMA & Al\ioifi~ieP,,,DE,4LFli',"*rt<;x'l$is0F{oi:iTitit

CORPORATION reported in 2009 (:6) 

Apex Court has clarified and Vennphatically iieAlld.:th~at""it' is noti

only the salary which tvh-exgdecea'se.d_:*w'a-s_ dravving at the time
of death, but other perks'  progression
in carrier, Dro_S.D.ect5_ of  be sounded in
terms of    laid down certain
criteria,... if"-the; deceased was less than
40  to be added to his income

and the resu--|tanti'igu0re"wiiuld be salary for ali purposes, like

-'W,.,dett3,r'}«nin_,ation of"los.s...of dependency, etc., In other words,

 hel'd.,:that::if--«the victim is less than 40 years 50% of his

income be added to the proved income and then it

7,_should.  subjected to 1/3"' or 50% deductions depending

'fi°upoln"~«whether deceased was married or bachelor. Even in

0  case of bachelor the deduction of 50% is again amenable to

 fact situation. If dependants are more then the deductions



would be 1/3"' or even 1/4"'. The learned Member of the
Tribunal has not applied the said dictum to the instant case.
Besides, the fact that only net income has been taken is

improper.

9. In the instant case, the income_...._s'l'low-n;is

Rs.10,-497/--. Professional tax was Rs.150/-fwti2.a.t'could 

the only deduction. Consequently,'"the'.,_in-come.xoVf':V"the

deceased would be taken as, _Rs.1lCi,4?i--7/- an.t.§.'A'5'0"3/dy

should be added which ultimateiiy gives usVl1R§;s_1s';l347/--. it

But, keeping in mindbthe jotlherl:_ci'.r'c.umstaVnces as the
deceased was employed  t$,riyate~«..ll'is;rj3.»l}_though he had

steady .i'_i'1"I'Cf' ..re'gular;.;income, fiit""vwo'uld be safe to take his

income   he was a bachelor and as

dependentsdarevvonlly p'arents the deductions should be 50%.

  bfasi_s the""iovs.s.:..«of dependency has to be calculated.

V."-.yTiui's,~.the'mVui.!t:i'p--l_icand would be Rs.7,500/-- per month and

andnulalllyvéltlhfxitiuld be Rs.90,000/-. To this multiplicand

iv.rnultipli.er'applicable would be 13 depending upon the age of

A '~:ltbe-'lrnother at 46 years as she is young among parents.

 ioss of dependency would be Rs.11,70,000/- as

 against Rs.5,04,000/-- determined by the Tribunal.

C§&Q7/



10. The learned counsel Mr. Arun Ponnappa, for
respondent -- insurance company would contend that the

addition of 50% to the income should be in the cas'e:fw.h'e,re

the deceased was either in Government emplo\,.{'n'1ent:"or'such 

institutions where job is guaranteed: He 0'

in the instant case, the victim was inall private: eym'pfi'o_yee

and there is no security toVlt~h_evjpob.A"He fu_rt'he'r._:sutaanitted'~00

that to the income of thedece.a*sedg_r-the-.incornetaxjshould be

deducted.

11. I_V'_gi\_/en  se.rio*u's----«concern to the said
contentionr i3'u't_'it_is'Vseeflhthat"basisVito add 50% or 30% of
the income_AiAs'l~ltowVa'rds«career progression and better future

earning ofthe yic_ti'rr.is~, '_w-hlohad regular income. It does not

indicate the person" who  employed in permanent cadre like

V:'Goy'ern:ii*ien%t'~service or other undertakings alone in entitled

A"":o*!sucht'fi3e'nefit§" This would also include persons who had

sec'L-_rity"ofyt'he job like the victim in this case. Regarding

'"4"---:»"incom.e'V----tax, it is seen that the basic salary was only

t._é"-Rs;-Z0560/~ and total emoluments was Rs.10,497/~ per

  .tv.rnonth. The accident is in the year 2005. We take judicial

notice that there was income tax exemption up to

(}§;v/



Rs.1,00,000/--. In the circumstance, no deduction of income

tax at the source was applicable.

12. Under conventional heads the Trib_unVai:_"i.has

awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/-- towards loss 

transportation of dead body and towards fi-i'ia»:...:l'b'f4e';f: In a_ll','~ 

the claimants wouid be entitled to agaiinst

Rs.5,34,000/-. The enhanced'cc«njpens-ation si1va'%iii..;caVrVry

rate of interest at 6% Per annu_rh.i:_T--h_ve co'm.p_ensat}ion along
with accrued interest shall  ap'p'o'rti'on:ed_ equally between
the parents and kept inpdepojsitiinaariy'v_i\latio"nalised Bank for

a period of.fi\}.e witih._:VVpe_rrrifis'sio::€"'to the claimants to

draw the interest. cAa'ccru':é:.d-thereon.'"lnszurance company is

directed to dé-po'si_t the within four weeks. Rest

of the directionslcoyntained  award are confirmed.

 .....  

Fudge