Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 563 (KAR)

I. M. Kusuma v. Sri Adon

2009-07-30

S.ABDUL NAZEER

body2009
Judgment : S. Abdul Nazeer, J This appeal is directed against the judgment and award in MVC No.91/1998 dated 29.05.2002 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge (sr.Dn.) and MACT-III (for short ‘Tribunal Davanagere. The appellants are the claimants, the first respondent is the owner and the second respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. The claimants, the first respondent is the owner and the second respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. The claimants have sought award of 25 lakhs towards compensation on account of the death of I.M. Muchatti in the accident in question. However, the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 7,28,304/- with interest at 8% per annum. The appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. it is the case of the claimants that on 1.06.1996 at about 11.00 a.m. the deceased was traveling from Davanagere to Anagodu in a scooter bearing No.KA-17/H-3051 when he came near Vaddanahalli cross on NH.4, the car bearing No.MH-12/W-7829 suddenly dashed against the scooter driven by the deceased. It is further contended that the cause for accident was the rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver. The deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. After service of notice, the first and second respondents have entered appearance and have filed their reply denying the petition averments. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues: “1.Whether the petitioners prove that on 1.6.1997 at about 11.00 a.m., near Vaddanahalli cross, the deceased was travelling on a Scooter bearing Reg.No.MH-12/W-7829 came in high speed rash and negligent manner and dashed to the scooter wherein the deceased died on the spot? 2. Whether the petitioners further prove that the deceased Sri I.M.Muchatti died in a motor vehicle accident? 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so from whom? 4. What order?” 3. The first claimant got herself examined as P.W1 and a witness by name Jayanna was examined as P.W2.Documents Ex.R1 to Ex.r3 have been marked on behalf of the respondents. The Tribunal has held issue Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative and in favour of the claimants. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of RS.7,28,304/-towards compensation with interest at 8% per annum from the date of the award till the date of deposit. 4. The Tribunal has held issue Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative and in favour of the claimants. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of RS.7,28,304/-towards compensation with interest at 8% per annum from the date of the award till the date of deposit. 4. As noticed above, the claimants have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation. There is no challenge to the findings of the Tribunal on issue Nos. 1 and 2. Therefore, the only question to be considered in this appeal is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable? 5. Sri Mahesh R.Uppin, Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants would contend that the deceased was working as a Lecturer in a Government Pre-University college. He was aged 47 years at the time of accident. He had four dependents at the time of his death. Having regard to the decision of the Apex Court in SARALA VERMA Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPERATION? , the Tribunal ought to have added 30% of the income towards future prospects as he was below the age of 50 years at the time of the accident. Further, the Tribunal ought to have adopted 13 multiplier and deducted only 1/4th Of his monthly income towards personal expenses since the deceased has left behind four dependents. It is further argued that the deceased was paying a professional tax of Rs.75/- per month and annual income tax of RS.5,000/- during the relevant taxes, the Tribunal ought to have assessed the compensation. 6.On the other hand, Learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent has sought to justify the impugned and award. Alternatively, it is argued that the claimants have claimed additional compensation of Rs.2,99,000/- in this appeal. Therefore, this Court cannot award additional compensation beyond Rs.2,99,000/-. 7.I have carefully considered the arguments of the Learned Counsel made at the Bar and perused the materials placed on record. 8. It is not in dispute that deceased was 47 years of age at the time of the accident. He was working as a Lecturer at a Government Pre-university College, Anagodu. It is clear from the salary certificate at Ex.P4 that he was drawing a gross salary of Rs.8,118/-. He was paying professional tax of Rs.75/- per month. 8. It is not in dispute that deceased was 47 years of age at the time of the accident. He was working as a Lecturer at a Government Pre-university College, Anagodu. It is clear from the salary certificate at Ex.P4 that he was drawing a gross salary of Rs.8,118/-. He was paying professional tax of Rs.75/- per month. It is also not in dispute that during the relevant point of time, he was paying income tax of Rs.5,000/-.The dependants of the deceased are his wife, two daughters and his mother. In SARALA VERMA’ s case (supra), the Apex Court has set out certain guidelines in order to maintain uniformity and consistency in awarding compensation. The Court has held that where the deceased had a permanent job and if he was aged between 40 to 50 years,30% of his actual salary (after deduction of tax) should be added on the head ‘income for future prospects’. It has been further held that if the deceased has left behind 4 to 6 dependant family members, 1/4th of the income should de deducted towards personal and living expenses. Therefore, the Tribunal after deducting the tax payable by him in a sum of Rs.5,900/-(income tax at Rs.5,000/- and annual professional tax of Rs.900/-), ought to have added 30% of his annual salary towards future prospects. Since there are four dependents, out of the said amount, the Tribunal ought to have deducted only 1/4th of the amount towards his personal expenses in order to arrive at the loss of dependency. Therefore, compensation payable on the head ‘loss of dependency’ is as follows: TABLE 9. It is true that, in the appeal memo, the claimants have sought award of additional of Rs.2,99,000/-only. Grant of just and fair compensation is the statutory responsibility of the Court. In ORIGINAL INSURANCE CO. LID. Vs. MOHAD. NASIR & ANOTHER? - the Apex Court has held as under: “27.The function of Commissioner is to determine the amount of as laid down under the Act. Even if no amount which is found payable to the workman. Grant of just and fair compensation is the statutory responsibility of the Court. In ORIGINAL INSURANCE CO. LID. Vs. MOHAD. NASIR & ANOTHER? - the Apex Court has held as under: “27.The function of Commissioner is to determine the amount of as laid down under the Act. Even if no amount which is found payable to the workman. Even in the cases arising out of the 1988 Act, it is the duty of the Tribunal to arrive at a just compensation having regard to the provisions contained in Section 168 thereof.” Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the Learned Counsel for the second respondent that the Court cannot award compensation exceeding the claimed amount. 10. In the result, the appeal succeeds and it accordingly allowed in part. The second respondent- insurance company is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.4,56,660/- in addition to what has already been awarded by the Tribunal. The said amount shall carry interest at 6% from the date of deposit. The second respondent is directed to deposit the said amount within a period oh eight weeks from the date of a copy of this order. The aforesaid amount shall be apportioned equally between the claimants/appellants. The Tribunal is directed to disburse the aforesaid amount to the claimants as above. No costs.