Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 555 (KAR)

Moula Sab v. Manager United India Insurance

2011-06-03

K.BHAKTHAVATSALA

body2011
Judgment :- With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, heard arguments for final disposal. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants submits that though the deceased Samsuddin was 20 years old, working as Draftsman Mechanic for Mandara Associates at Bangalore and drawing salary of Rs.5,000/- per month, the Tribunal has not awarded adequate compensation in favour of the claimants. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.1/Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has awarded adequate compensation and there is no good ground for enhancement. 4. Perused the LCRs. 5. The claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.8 lakshs towards the death of Samsuddin, who died in the motor accident that occurred on 1.12.2007. The claimants are parents, elder and younger sister of deceased Samsuddin. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased was working as Draftsman Mechanic for Mandara Associates at Bangalore and drawing salary of Rs.5,000/- per month and the claimants were solely depending on the earnings of the deceased. In support of the case of claimants, the father of deceased has got himself examined as PW.1 besides examining the rider of the motor cycle/D.Suresh as PW.2 and got marked salary certificate and copy of ration card as Exs.P8 and P9 respectively. At the time of accident, the deceased was traveling on the motor cycle as a pillion rider. The salary certificate issued by Mandara Associates, Bangalore is not proved in evidence. In the claim petition, salary of the deceased is stated as Rs.5,000/- per month. As per the salary certificate, the deceased was drawing salary of Rs.4,500/- per month. The accident occurred in the year 2007. According to the ration card issued in the year 2006, the deceased Samsuddin was 18 years. Thus, on the date of accident, the deceased was 19 years old. The Tribunal has fixed income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and after deducting 50% of the income towards personal expenses of the deceased and taking into consideration the age of the mother, applied, multiplier 14 and awarded compensation in favour of the claimants as under:- 6. It is submitted that the deceased is the only son of claimants No.1 and 2. It is submitted that the deceased is the only son of claimants No.1 and 2. As per the decision rendered in Sarla Verma (SMT) and Others V. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121, claimants No.3 and 4/sisters of the deceased, are not dependants on the deceased. The father and mother of the deceased are aged 62 and 42 years, respectively. Since younger parent is aged about 42 years, according to the ratio laid down in Sarla Verma’s casem supra, multiplier 14 is applicable for the age group of persons between 41 and 45 years. 7. It is common knowledge that revision of pay scale takes place once in 5 years. Even if the deceased had married and established his own family, he would have contributed atleast Rs.3,000/- per month on an average to the parents of the deceased till their death. Under such circumstances, it is a fit case to take loss of dependency at Rs.3,000/- per month and apply multiplier 14 and award compensation. In my view, the appellants/claimants are entitled for compensation as under:- 8. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed holding that the appellants/parents are entitled for additional compensation of Rs.1,92,000/-along with costs and interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. Accordingly, the impugned Judgment and Award are modified. The enhanced compensation amount awarded shall be equally apportioned among the claimants No.1 and 2. Respondent No.1/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation among along with the costs and interest with the Tribunal within three months from today.