Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 728 (KAR)

K. NANJAPPA v. V. SEKAR

2003-08-29

H.G.RAMESH

body2003
H. G. RAMESH, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is by the claimants seeking for enhancement of compensation for the death of their son, namely, Balaji in a motor accident that occurred on 15. 9. 1996. The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 78,000 along with 6 per cent interest from the date of their claim till the date of payment. ( 2 ) THE finding of the Tribunal that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the car bearing No. TN 09-E 4575 has become final and is not disputed in this appeal. ( 3 ) THE appellants-claimants had sought for conversion of their claim petition filed under section 166 to one under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by filing LA. No. 1 and the same had been allowed by this court on 3. 7. 2003 relying on the Full Bench judgment of this court in Guruanna Vadi v. General Manager, karnataka State Road Trans. Corpn. , 2001 ACJ 1528 (Karnataka ). Accordingly, the only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the appellants are entitled to compensation as provided under section 163-A of Motor vehicles Act, 1988? ( 4 ) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. ( 5 ) MR. Gopalakrishna appearing for the claimants submits that in view of the amendment granted by this court, the appellants are entitled to the compensation awardable under section 163-A read with the Second Schedule of the Act, which according to him would come to Rs. 1,54,500 on the facts of this case. ( 6 ) MR. Vijaykumar appearing for the respondent No. 2, United India Insurance co. Ltd. , submitted that section 163-A would not be applicable to the facts of the case as the deceased was a non-earning member. This argument is to be stated only to be rejected. It is clearly stated in the Second Schedule of the Act at item no. 6 that if the victim had no income, the income will have to be taken notionally at rs. 15,000 per annum and on that basis the compensation will have to be worked out. Accordingly, the contention urged on behalf of the insurer is totally devoid of merit and is accordingly rejected. 6 that if the victim had no income, the income will have to be taken notionally at rs. 15,000 per annum and on that basis the compensation will have to be worked out. Accordingly, the contention urged on behalf of the insurer is totally devoid of merit and is accordingly rejected. ( 7 ) THIS takes me to the aspect of assessment of the compensation under section 163-A of the Act read with the Second schedule. The deceased was aged about 6 years and the multiplier applicable would be 15 as per the Second Schedule of the act and since the deceased was a non-earning member, the income will have to be taken at Rs. 15,000 per annum and if calculated on the basis of these facts, total compensation would come to Rs. 2,25,000 (15 x Rs. 15,000 ). As per the Schedule, the ultimate compensation payable will have to be arrived at by deducting 1/3rd of it in consideration of the expenses which the victim would have incurred towards maintaining himself had he been alive. Accordingly, by deducting 1/3rd the compensation amount would come to Rs. 1,50,000. To this, as per the Schedule, Rs. 2,000 towards funeral expenses and Rs. 2,500 towards loss to estate should be added. In all, the compensation under section 163-A of the act on the facts of the case would come to Rs. 1,54,500 which the claimants are entitled to. ( 8 ) IN the result, I make the following order: (I) The compensation of Rs. 78,000 awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to rs. 1,54,500. The enhanced compensation of Rs. 76,500 shall carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit. The enhanced amount is apportioned equally between the appellants. (ii) Respondent No. 2, United India insurance Co. Ltd. is directed to deposit the enhanced amount with the Tribunal within 12 weeks from today. (iii) The Tribunal shall pass appropriate orders with regard to the investment/disbursement of the enhanced amount having regard to the observations made by the Apex Court in General Manager, kerala State Road Transport Corpn. v. Susamma Thomas, 1994 ACJ 1 (SC ). (iv) The judgment and award of the claims Tribunal in all other respects is not disturbed. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. No costs. Appeal allowed. --- *** --- .