Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 551 (KAR)

Muniratnamma v. K. G. Venkateshwarulu

2008-09-25

SUBHASH B.ADI

body2008
JUDGMENT Subhash B. Adi, J. This is an appeal by the claimant for enhancement of compensation. 2. Claimant is mother of the deceased. The deceased was travelling in a tempo, when the said tempo reached Ammavarpalli, a lorry bearing No.AAA-8795 driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the tempo. Due to the said impact, the claimant’s son sustained grevious injury and was taken to the Government Hospital at Penugonda and from there he was shifted to NIMHANS, there he was inpatient from 17.9.2000 to 21.9.200 and on 21.9.2000 he succumbed to the injury. 3. It is stated that the deceased was aged about 23 years and was earning R. 3,500/- per month. The Tribunal considering the evidence found that, the income of the deceased could be at Rs.3,000/-, however, deducting 50% of the income towards personal expenses calculated the loss of dependency. 4. The only contention urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that, the deduction of 50% is unreasonable. Though the deceased was bachelor, however, it is not necessary that the deduction could be always 50%. 5. In this case, the deceased was aged 23 years and claimant being mother of 42 years and deceased could not have been expected to spend more than 1/3rd of the amount. He submitted that, 50% deduction is adopted on the basis of decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in ILR 2000 KAR 4416 in the matter of Gulam Khader & Another -Vs-United India Insurance Co. Ltd., & Another, wherein this Court relying on the earlier decision in case of bachelor has observed at para-12 as under: “12. In so far as bachelors are concerned, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses because it is considered that a bachelor will be more care free as he has not yet accquired a wife and children and therefore, tend to spend more on himself. There is also the possibility of the bachelor getting married in a short time, in which event also the contribution to the parent/s and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father will have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and only the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father will have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and only the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. Similarly subject to evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters are not considered as dependents, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, the family is taken as consisting of only two members, that is the bachelor and mother, who is considered as the only dependant, and 50% is treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor, and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where family of the bachelor was large and dependant on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, the contribution to the family will be taken either as two-third, or calculated by adopting unit method.” This Court has heled that, 50% could be deducted towards personal expenses. Learned Counsel submitted that, against the said decision, a special leave was filed before the Apex Court and the Apex Court in a decision reported in (2008) 4 SCC 259 in the matter of Bilkish Vs. United Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another has held that, 1/3rd would be the reasonable deduction instead of 50%. Relying on the said decision, he submitted that, the deduction of 50% is unreasonable. 6. Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that, in cases of death of the bachelor, the deduction given is 50% and the Division-Bench of this Court has considered the said matter and has held that, 50% deduction is reasonable in case of bachelor. 7. The decision of GULAM KHADER (supra) fell for consideration before the Apex Court and the Apex Court against the very same judgment of GULAM KHADER in the decision of BILKISH (supra) has observed at para-4 as under: “4. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the High Court and the Tribunal is not correct. The incumbent was a bachelor and he could not have spent more than 1/3rd of his total income for personal use and rest of the amount earned by him would certainly go to the family kitty. The incumbent was a bachelor and he could not have spent more than 1/3rd of his total income for personal use and rest of the amount earned by him would certainly go to the family kitty. Therefore, determining the loss of dependency by 50% was not correct. Therefore, we assess that he must be spending 1/3rd towards personal use and contributing 2/3rd of his income to his family.........” The very same judgment of the Division Bench of this Court fell for consideration before the Apex Court and the Apex Court in the same judgment has held that, in case of bachelor, the deduction could be 1/3rd and not 50%. Considering the same, I am of the opinion that, the said judgment is considered by the Apex Court and has held that, 1/3rd deduction in cas of bachelor is reasonable. Accordingly, to the extent of deduction of 50% is concerned, it is modified to 1/3rd and the compensation is enhanced by Rs.78,000/- over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6% per annum.