Manjula and Others vs Mahadev and Others

S. Sujatha, J.—Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

The brief facts of the case are:

"On 15.09.2006 at about 22-30 hours, when the Basavaraj Niradi was riding as a pillion in the motorcycle bearing No. KA-23/U-2479 on Bailhongal-Belgaum road near Chiwatgundi cross, Sanikoppa village, it is alleged that the rider of the motorcycle drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, thereby caused the accident due to which Basavaraj sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Dr. Mahantshetti Hospital, Bailhongal and thereafter shifted to KLES Hospital, Belgaum, however, he succumbed to the injuries while under treatment in KLE Hospital, Belgaum. On these facts, widow and parents of the deceased filed claim petition seeking compensation before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after considering the evidence placed on record awarded compensation of Rs. 9,36,000/-. Being dissatisfied with the same, the claimants are before this Court."

The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the deceased was aged about 31 years at the time of occurrence of the accident and no future prospects has been awarded by the Tribunal. It is further contended that the Tribunal having noticed the age of the deceased at the time of occurrence of the accident at 31 years, applied the multiplier of ''14'' instead of ''16'', which is contrary to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, .

In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Munna Lal Jain and Others Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and Others , the claimants are entitled to future prospects. Furthermore, noticing that the deceased was working as Head Master at Kittur Rani Chennamma High School, Bailhongal, was drawing salary of Rs. 6,200/- p.m., it would be appropriate to award 50% of the income of the deceased towards future prospects. However, it is also noticed that the age of the deceased being 31 years, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of ''14'' instead of ''16'', the same has to be made at ''16'' in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma''s case [supra].

It is also noticed that the widow of the deceased was aged about 24 years at the time of occurrence of the accident, compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of love and affection and loss of consortium is on the lower side. Considering the age of the widow and the aged parents, it would be appropriate to enhance the same to Rs. 30,000/- under the head - loss of love and affection and loss of consortium.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part, the judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified. The claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs. 3,24,784/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. The insurance company shall deposit the enhanced compensation within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment and the claimants are at liberty to withdraw the same.

ORDER ON ''BEING SPOKEN TO''

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The learned counsel for the respondent insurance company has filed a memo for ''being spoken to''.

The learned counsel for the respondent contends that originally the appeal was filed by the appellants against the New India Assurance Company as insurer of the offending vehicle. Since it is apparent mistake in impleading New India Assurance Company instead of the present respondent, an application was filed for amendment of petition impleading National Insurance Company as respondent No. 2. Therefore the National Insurance Company was added as a party, as respondent No. 2 by the order of this Court dated 31.7.2014. Therefore there being no fault of the respondent, National Insurance Company, interest may not be awarded on the enhanced compensation from the date of petition till the date of allowing of the appeal, but it may be only from the date of petition till passing of the award and after amendment of the appeal memo, dated 31.7.2014, till the date of payment.

However the learned counsel appearing for the claimants contends that, though this respondent National Insurance Company was a party in the proceedings before the claims Tribunal, by inadvertence the New India Assurance Company was impleaded as respondent No. 2. After realising the same, an application was filed before this Court and this Court by order dated 31.7.2014 allowed the application wherein the respondent has not opposed allowing the said application and it is allowed without any conditions as now raised by the respondent. In view of the same, the contention now raised by the respondent cannot be appreciated and the same has to be negated.

After considering the arguments advanced by both the parties it is clear that at the time of disposing of the application I.A. No. 2/2014 by this Court, the learned counsel appearing for this respondent i.e., the National Insurance Company has not opposed allowing the application, which is categorically recorded in the order passed by this Court on 31.7.2014. In view of the said order and the National Insurance Company being a party in the Tribunal, this appeal being filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation, liability not being questioned by the insurance company, the contention now raised by the insurance company/respondent herein cannot be appreciated and the same is negated. Accordingly the order passed by this Court awarding of compensation stands confirmed.