IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009,
:PREsENT:' K V
THE HONELE MR. JUSTICE N.K. _
AND --- , T
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE' 31.! ',
M.E.A.No.3764 oF"2o0_6 (MV}'1;" *
BETWEEN :
1. Prof. K.Rajaiah,
Aged about 63 y'u'~_tE_iI1'3, '_ _ .
S / o. Kodandarama _I\}'aiCIT.:i'
2. Smt. Sw'afsTalat:f1Va':b
1' o'a.:'tV§out :§
'
Both are fesi'i1i'ngVat No.48.
_ Millers Tank. B1';1_nd""R0ad,
" Banga1oreH-- 550 052.
""" ...Appe11ants
senior counsel
~.fo;~._M /'s.'."_S.u1Tda1'aswamy & Ramdas]
AA The Managing Director,
Bangalore Metro 'I'ransport Corporation.
Kerigal I-Ianuman aiah Road,
inadequate, particularly, so far as the compensation
awarded towards loss of dependency is C0I]C(3I'l'i€.fd'.'g7
2. The claimants appellants are
deceased son Sujay Krishna. He
years as on the date of the adccid'e'11_t"'Aand' '4
graduate in Mechanical Engineering; That the
unfortunate date, ie on about 7:55
hours, the deceased"_'"was'_VA a§V.pil'1iV_on"'~ri_der of the Motor
Cycle bearing Registrationly fNo";KA'%'o27w-2209 being
driven by frien.dl._ :wasV""p'roceeding towards
Engineers" at x."VSabari complex, Residency
Road.EWV-- the B.R.V. Junction, on
see,ld.ng [real the rider, Pradeep stopped the
~' gx/lotontflycie. the red signal was still ON, a
bus came from behind and dashed
against standing motor cycle in which the deceased
was a'*pillion rider. On account of the said accident, the
{deceased sustained grievous injuries and later. on
" *'-'succurnbed to the same.
94W
55'
f
3. On account of the death of the deceased as a
result of the grievous injuries sustained in the aeeident,
the appellants herein, being his parents filed..:thtfe..'_elaim
petition before the Tribunal, seeking eompensatioli a
sum of Rupees One Crore against t'heVV4res'pond:ent.V -- ';
Corporation. The said claim petition had_e.orne"
consideration before the ._on-._:1'8¥5~-;v'4N'ov'ember
2005. The Tribunal, after'Vp_jeonsidering'~the relevant
material available on' 'fiie 'and;after,l'_app_reciation of the
oral and doeuinenitaijrl 'allowed the claim
petitionflint*ip5art,l"Ea{rv'ardirig aim of Rs.4,65,000/~ with
interestwp from the date of petition till
its deposit" the Being dissatisfied with the
f if compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the
ll in appeal before this Court, seeking
enharzieement of compensation.
We have heard the learned senior counsel
"appearing for the appellants and learned counsel for
Are
/
respondent -- Corporation for considerable iength of
time.
5. The principal submission canvassed__b:y’:iearned
senior counsei appearing for the appeligarits
deceased Sujay Krishna was a”Gr’adui.ate~iin._1Viec,1f1ariic’al ‘
Engineering with high distinction:”through.oiit “anid.”had,p
also cleared the Entrance for IGNICIVTVforlkadmission
to join the Eiite Cizib~~._of o substantiate the
said submission, he vprodticedvVt1’i:e1,VC’ertificate issued
by the Certificate, he
subniittedi’ thevuopinion of the NIIT, if the
deceased” gVhad.”vA,.CjVprod:1:ice’d the Engineering Degree
Certificate”wiithddist-indction, he would have been placed
. the topmhidian IT Companies for Professioriai
have got a stipeiid of Rs.8,000/– to
Rs«.1O,,_’OO-(if/4 and after the Probationary period, would
..have earned a place in one of the reputed IT Companies
salary of Rs.15,000/– to Rs.20,000/– per month.
” “Therefore, he submitted that, this aspect of the matter
94
,2′
4:
6
has not been looked into nor considered nor appreciated
by the Tribunal and without assigning
reasons, has proceeded to take the monthiyvinlcoriiehof»
the deceased only at Rs.6:.~0’0G/–t.’ thelf
compensation of Rs.3,96,000/fawardedltowards’
dependency, taking the”vinComev’ oft:
Rs.6,000/– per month_: is’.Vehi’glilyyVinadednateand needs
considerable enhancerrient;~y., that.
the Tribunal also half of the
income expenses of the
decezviseehi’ lthevllatest judgment of Apex
Courtin Company case, wherein it
is held :1 /3″ towards personal expenses
. “erdinaryllllrule in India. Therefore, he
that, just and reasonable
compensation may be awarded towards loss of
..d,epen’dency by taking the appropriate income of the
_d’eceased.
L
/
6. As against this. the learned counsel for the
Corporation, inter alia, contended and substantiated
that the judgment and award passed by is
just and reasonable and does not call
Further, he submitted that, the all it
the relevant aspects of the matter awa-rd,e’dA’ju’st *’
reasonable compensation _hence,f”Lhe Timpugned
judgment and award.4_.does.’_Vnot. for. interference.
7. After carefu1.._considerati’on Voffft-l’ie submission .of
the learned._’:vco}unsel:’–foi: ‘the:_lpai’tie’s’;”‘ after evaluation of
the file, threadbare, and
after lperusai .jvofA:.?fthe’*-..:irn.pugned judgment and award
passed lithe the only point that arise for our
” .concsid’erati.on is as to:
.. ‘Whether the compensation awarded by
fiidbtinal towards loss of dependency needs
a ‘€F;lh(lI’1C€TTi8I’lt Z?
indisputably, the deceased Sujay Krishna has
it -~~’succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident
a
If m_u__v__M_&_WJW_i…
z’
that occurred on the unfortunate day, on 27–1_}._ff2001,
for no fault of him. The parents having 1ost–‘t’lie_’igrVg:son,
filed the claim petition seeking compensatpidnyofi
One Crore against the Corporation. ti’
without any justification and
reasons, has taken the thefifivdecfieasedfi
at Rs.6,000/–, comp’1eteiyivtign’orinVgithe iactthat. he was
a highly meritorious his educational
career and with 82% in the
7th and Further, the Tribunal
also after completion of the
Engineeriiag deceased had cleared the
Entrance 4″fo;::V}’foin’ing- trite Elite Club of IGNIIT. Exs.P17
– ‘~ the high academic excellence of the
deceavsedpv Various other activities in the field of
coiI1p1,;’ters:’:’ A It is appropriate to reiterate the statements
made the Certificate Ex.P2-4 issued by the NH’? that,
“titie deceased had produced the Engineering Degree
it V’ “Certificate with distinction, he would have been placed
9
-in one of the top Indian IT Companies for Professionai
Practice and would have got a stipend of Rs.8,000/– to
Rs.10,000/– and after the Probationary period,-~.__wou1d
have earned a place in one of the reputed IT
with salary of Rs. 15,000/– to Rs.20,000/–
is relevant to note that, the sa’idA”C’e’rtifi.catefistissuedxnby 9 T
the competent authority of the zN’II;ij?,_’.Whi¢>.r£_” is*vone’=«<o'f
premier institutions for academic 'excei_Eencie and the
same cannot be ignored. Th-e4i'.e_fore, having regard to
all these vital aspects, "We "haire:no"19i_esi-tation in taking
the zdodthigkt.inoogdoofioiidie eeeeasee at Rs.12,000/–.
deduction of 1 /3&1 of the income
towards t1ie..,persoIi'al expenses of the deceased, we are
d theméjudgment of the Apex Court in the
: ~ Insurance Company Limited Vs. Deo
Pti.tod.i' 'oodi others ( AIR 2009 so 2442), wherein at
..paragr'aph 14, it is observed that deduction of 1/3ré
' fldtowjards personal expenses is the ordinary rule in India
i' V' "and in the facts and cir tances, the same should be
,2' »–e~«——M'
5'
I0
applied. Further, it is observed that, a just and
reasonable compensation however. depends the
fact-situation obtaining in each case and.-no
fast rule. therefore, can be laid _droW_n. ' .
must be struck somewhere, to arrivle at pa-.reiaso'n_ail3.le
and fair mesne. Accord-jc:1_i1g1_y, liayingf to the
status of the family the zparticularly bearing
in mind the age of respectively 62
years and justifiable for us
to deducitt 'towards the personal
'therefore. in the light of the
obserya.tions judgment of the Apex Court
(Supra) coupled the fact~situation of the case on
have Iiolhesitation in deducting 1/31"" of the
.ineome"'–tov.?ards the personal expenses of the deceased.
Accordingly. we take the monthly income of the
rrdf:.ceaS'ed at Rs.l.2,000/– and after deducting 1/ 3t<§, we
get': Rs.8,000/~ per month. Taking the monthly income
l 2 "at Rs.8.000/~, adopting ropriate multiplier of 'H'
/'
/
£
{I
having regard to the age of the younger parent, mother,
we award a sum of Rs.10,56,000/– {i.e. Rs.8,000/~–~ X 12
X 11 } towards loss of dependency instead of
Rs.3,96,000/– awarded by Tribunal.
9. However. so far as the compe.neation’–.av1arded 9
towards the conventional heads
is just and proper and doei’S-not for
10. In the light of of
the case, the appeaifliiled is allowed in
part. The impugned passed by the
Tnb~:ifigi1igdé§i:edpitsrtiatixievemiéér 2005 in M. V. c. No.
1835/ i’sV.Vherehgy—a:_:”modified only in so far as Loss
of gdependeilhcyd’ isttcorzcerned, by awarding a sum of
..E§s.V1G’;E;6d;€-Q0/–has against Rs/3.96.000/– awarded by
._th_e¢1 with interest at 6% per annum on the
en-ha:_1’ce’d:”‘sum, from the date of petition till the date of
V to regalizvation.
The respondent Corporation is directed to deposit
“the enhanced compen of Rs.6.60.000/~ with 6%
/Mamet
interest thereon, within four weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of the judgment and award.
Immediately on deposit of the enhancpedié’siiiniprfirith
interest by the Corporation, a sum of
shall be kept in Fixed Deposii;:JAccou_n’tpp is
the second appellant, mother of_the de.e’ea.s::ed
Nationaiized or Scheduledyivifiiank for— ‘a:i’period of five
years, with permissizon. to the quarterly
interest. ‘V
The of/– with interest
both the appeilants in
equal”pro’portio_n»,A:_:i{ntn ateiy.
.» vvOffiee ‘dir_e_cted to draw the award, accordingly.
‘E
fifif “‘*
§§DGE
Sd/~
3UX§E