Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 50 (KAR)

Pushpa Basattiyavar v. Harish B.

2018-01-05

JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA, S.SUJATHA

body2018
JUDGMENT : S. SUJATHA, J. 1. The appellants herein were the claimants before the Principal Senior Civil Judge and J. M.F.C.-cum-Member, MACT-IV, Hosapete (hereafter referred to as the "the Tribunal", for brevity) in MVC No. 761/2014, whose claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was allowed in part by the impugned judgment and award, dated 19-10-2015. Seeking enhancement of the compensation against the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants have preferred this appeal. 2. In the memorandum of appeal, the appellants have taken a contention that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads are all meager. Further stating that the Tribunal ought to have awarded the compensation as claimed by them, have prayed for allowing the appeal. 3. Heard the arguments from both sides and perused the materials placed before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants in his argument reiterated the contention taken up by the appellants in the memorandum of appeal. 5. After analysing the evidence and the materials placed before it, the Tribunal has awarded the compensation under the following heads with the sum shown against them : Amount (Rs.) Towards loss of consortium 1,00,000=00 Towards loss of love and affection to petitioner Nos. 2 to 4, Rs. 10,000 x 3 = 30,000/-. 30,000. 00 Towards loss of dependency 7,56,000=00 Towards funeral expenses 20,000=00 Towards loss of estate 10,000. 00 Total 9,16,000=00 6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that, the Tribunal failed to award future prospects. As such, the income awarded under the head of "loss of dependency" is a meager amount. In his support, the learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 SC AIR 5157 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 25590/2014, dated 31-10-2017. 7. Since it is a claimants appeal, the age, occupation and salary of the deceased as observed by the Tribunal is not in dispute. The Tribunal determined the monthly income of the deceased on a notional basis at Rs. 6,000/- per month rejecting the contention of the claimants that the deceased was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month and contributing the same for his family etc. , based on RTC extracts-Ex. P7 and Ex. P8-driving license of the deceased. The Tribunal determined the monthly income of the deceased on a notional basis at Rs. 6,000/- per month rejecting the contention of the claimants that the deceased was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month and contributing the same for his family etc. , based on RTC extracts-Ex. P7 and Ex. P8-driving license of the deceased. The deceased was an agriculturist who owned 8 acres of land at Bannihalli village and as per the RTC extract, he was growing crops like maize. Considering the same, it can be held that the deceased was self-employed as an agriculturist. Considering the normal mode of determination made by this Court, the monthly income of the deceased deserves to be determined at Rs. 7,500/-. As per Pranay Sethi's case , the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe that while determining the income, an addition of 25% of actual income to the income of the deceased towards future prospects is required to be taken, where the deceased was self-employed and was below the age of 50 years. In the instant case, the undisputed age of the deceased as on the date of the accident is 45 years. As such, 25% of his actual income is to be added to consider the loss of dependency. Considering the number of dependants upon his income, 1/4th of his income has to be deducted towards his personal expenses. Thus, the compensation towards "loss of dependency" would arrive at Rs. 9,375/- (Rs. 7,500 + Rs. 1,875) x 12 x 14 x 3/4 = Rs. 11,81,250/-. In terms of Pranay Sethi ( AIR 2017 SC 5157 ) , the claimants are entitled to Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses, which in total comes to Rs. 70,000/-. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under these heads accordingly to be modified. Thus, in total, the claimants/appellants are entitled for compensation of Rs. 12,51,250/- as against Rs. 9,16,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 8. Barring the above, the claimants/appellants are not entitled for enhancement of compensation or awarding of compensation under any other heads. 9. Thus, in total, the claimants/appellants are entitled for a total enhancement of a sum of Rs. 3,35,250/- (Rupees three lakhs thirty-five thousand two hundred and fifty only), which is in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 10. Barring the above, the claimants/appellants are not entitled for enhancement of compensation or awarding of compensation under any other heads. 9. Thus, in total, the claimants/appellants are entitled for a total enhancement of a sum of Rs. 3,35,250/- (Rupees three lakhs thirty-five thousand two hundred and fifty only), which is in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 10. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following : ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The judgment and award passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and J. M. F. C. -cum-Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hosapete, in MVC No. 761/2014 dated 19-10-2015, is modified and enhanced to Rs. 12,51,250/- (Rupees twelve lakhs fifty-one thousand two hundred and fifty only) as against Rs. 9,16,000/-. (iii) The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs. 9,16,000/- shall carry interest at 9% p. a. whereas the enhanced amount of Rs. 3,35,250/- shall carry interest at 6% p. a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. (iv) The petitioner No. 5/appellant No. 5 is not entitled for compensation in terms of the order of the Tribunal. (v) The terms of the order of the Tribunal with respect to fixing the liability upon the respondents, apportionment of the awarded amount and the terms regarding deposit of the awarded amount and release of the amount awarded shall remain unaltered. Draw modified award accordingly.