Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 715 (KAR)

DEVAMMA ALIAS CHAYA v. BHARAT MANIK BHOSALE

2019-03-22

P.B.BAJANTHRI, P.G.M.PATIL

body2019
JUDGMENT : P. B. Bajanthri, J. - These two appeals are filed by the claimants and insurance company on the score that income criteria and other heads arrived at by the MACT is not in order with reference to documents placed On record. 2. On 09.07.2012, the deceased Siddappa was proceeding towards Ahmednagar on his motorcycle bearing registration No.MH 16 AP 4169, on Ahmednagar Road near Nagpur bridge at Ahmednagar, at about 11.30 a.m., a truck bearing registration No.MH 16/B 2170 which was approaching behind the motorcycle hit the motorcycle, resulted in severe injuries on the deceased and he died on the spot. Whereby a case was registered in crime No. 100/2012. Arising out of the aforesaid accident, Legal heirs of the deceased filed claim petition before the MACT. On 15.03.2013 the MACT passed award in MVC No. 1485/2012 by awarding compensation of Rs. 44,95,000/- 3. The claimants filed appeal on quantum that the MACT has committed error in not calculating the income appropriately with reference to Ex.P.11, insofar as deduction of income tax at Rs. 2,340/- and Rs. 200/-towards professional tax, whereas the MACT has deducted Rs. 5,610/- with reference to net income of deceased of Rs. 50,610/- for the month of June 2012. Thus, there is an error in calculating the income. It was further contended that claimants are entitled for future prospects with reference to the age of the deceased as 52 years and entitled for 10% in view of the principle laid down in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 : ( AIR 2017 SC 5157 ). It was further contended that towards loss of love and affection meager amount of Rs. 10,000/- has been granted, since two minor children of the deceased, they are entitled to a total amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- in terms of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & others, reported in 2018 ACJ 2782 : (AIR Online 2018 SC 189) 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurance company resisted the contention of the claimants, disputing the income arrived at by the MACT in not deducting towards conveyance and variable allowance for a sum of Rs. 2,200/- and Rs. 13,400/-respectively. Hence, order of the MACT is liable to be modified accordingly. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurance company resisted the contention of the claimants, disputing the income arrived at by the MACT in not deducting towards conveyance and variable allowance for a sum of Rs. 2,200/- and Rs. 13,400/-respectively. Hence, order of the MACT is liable to be modified accordingly. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. The core issue in the present case is whether MACT has committed any error in calculating income of the deceased and further claimants are entitled for future prospects and enhanced compensation under the head loss of love and affection. Undisputedly, the claimants have produced pay slip for the month of June. 2012 with reference to the date of accident as 09.07.2012 i.e. the date on which Siddappa died (Ex.P 11). Net income shown in the pay slip is Rs. 50,610/- the deduction should have been Rs. 2,114/- towards income tax and Rs. 200/- for professional tax. Thus, total Rs. 2,314/- should have been deducted and hot Rs. 5,610/- as calculated by the MACT. The contention of the respondent-insurance company that claimants are not entitled to calculate income including conveyance and variable allowance a sum of Rs. 2,200/- and Rs. 13,304/-respectively. Having regard to Ex.P. 11 the net income of the deceased is to be calculated as Rs. 50,610/- minus income tax at Rs. 2,114/- plus profession tax of Rs. 200/-conveyance allowance of Rs. 2,200/- and variable allowance of Rs. 13,304/-. Question of deduction of variable allowances has not been convinced by the learned counsel for the insurance company with any material. Therefore, the question of any deduction with reference to variable allowance of Rs. 13,304/- is not permissible. Accordingly, deduction should be Rs. 4,514/- with reference to income tax of Rs. 2,114/-profession tax of Rs. 200/- and conveyance allowance of Rs. 2,200/-. 7. Further, the claimants are entitled for future prospects with reference to age of the deceased as 52 years as on the date of accident. Thus, the claimants are entitled for 10% of future prospect, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pranay Sethi, case stated supra, the claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation under the head of love and affection from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. Thus, the claimants are entitled for 10% of future prospect, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pranay Sethi, case stated supra, the claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation under the head of love and affection from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-(two minor children) with reference to Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. decision stated supra, the claimants are also entitled under the conventional head a sum of Rs. 70,000/-. Now the loss of dependency is calculated as under: 50,610-4,514=46,096 x l/4th towards personal expenses. It comes to Rs. 11,524/-The income for the purpose of calculating loss of dependency would be Rs. 39,086/-(46,096-l1,524) and loss of dependency would be Rs. 51,59,352/- (39,086x12x11). Accordingly, it is reassessed as under: Loss of dependency Rs.51,59,352/- Love & Affection Rs.01,00,000/- Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- Loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Total: Rs.53,29,352/- 8. Thus, the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 53,29,352/-. In the result, we pass the following: ORDER MFA No.32887/2013 is allowed. MFA No.32647/2013 is dismissed. The appellants-claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 53,29,352/- together with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional Court forthwith. In view of disposal of the main matters, I.A.No.1/2015 in MFA 32887/2013 and I.A.No.3/2013 in MFA No.32647/2013 do not survive for consideration. Order accordingly.