Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1105 (KAR)

Kantabai v. Mahaveer

2020-06-17

S.G.PANDIT, V.SRISHANANDA

body2020
JUDGMENT S.G. Pandit, J. - Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of parties, the matter is finally heard and disposed of by this order. 2. The claimants-appellants are before this court not being satisfied with quantum of compensation awarded under the judgment and award dated 27.08.2016, passed by X Additional District and Sessions Judge and Member Additional MACT, Belagavi in MVC No.1274/2015, praying for enhancement of compensation. 3. Claimants are wife and children of the deceased Sanjay Kishan Beble. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the MV Act seeking compensation for the death of Sanjay Kisan Beble in a road traffic accident. It is stated that on 06.04.2015 at about 07.45p.m. the deceased was proceeding on a cycle, at that time, the driver of the tractor bearing No.MH-10/S-3903 drove the said vehicle in rash and negligent manner and dashed to the deceased. Due to which, he sustained grievous injuries. Immediately he was shifted to Krishna Hospital, Karad and subsequently he succumbed to the said accidental injuries. 4. It is stated that the claimants have spent Rs.50,000/- towards medical bills and also spent Rs.50,000/- towards transportation of the dead body, funeral expenses, ceremonial days and other expenses. 5. It is stated that the deceased was aged about 29 years and was doing labour work, getting daily income of Rs.800/- which he spent towards maintaining the family. 6. On issuance of notice, both respondents appeared before the tribunal and filed their written statements separately to the claim petition. The respondent No.1 -owner of the tractor denied the entire case of the claimants and further stated that the driver of the tractor had valid driving licence as on the date of accident. Further, he contended that the vehicle was covered with insurance policy issued by respondent No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the petition. 7. The second respondent-insurance company in its statement of objection denied the claim petition averments and contended that the claimants are permanent residents of Maharashtra State and the accident had taken place in Maharashtra State and the tribunal had no jurisdiction to try the claim petition. As there is violation of the provisions of the Act and rules, the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation and prayed for dismissal of the petition. 8. As there is violation of the provisions of the Act and rules, the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation and prayed for dismissal of the petition. 8. In support of their case, the claimant No.1 wife of the deceased got examined herself as PW1 apart from marking Ex.P1 to 9. No evidence led on behalf of respondents, except marking Ex.R1 the insurance policy. 9. The tribunal on consideration of the material on record both oral and documentary, awarded a total compensation at Rs.9,94,900/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its payment. 10. While awarding the above compensation, the tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month and adopted the multiplier of 17' since the deceased was aged about 29 years and deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased. The claimants being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, are before this court praying for enhancement of the compensation. 11. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and the learned counsel for the respondent -Insurance company. Perused the material on record. 12. The learned counsel for the appellantsclaimants would submit that the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal is on the lower side and prayed for enhancement of the compensation. Further, contended that the tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month which is also on the lower side. He submits that the deceased was doing labour work and was getting daily income of Rs.800/- which would be Rs.24,000/- per month. But, the tribunal without taking note of the evidence of PW1, assessed the income at Rs.6,000/- per month, which needs to be revised. Further, learned counsel for the appellants-claimants submits that the claimants would be entitled for compensation on the head of future prospects, which the tribunal failed to award. He further submits that claimant Nos.2 to 4 are minor children of the deceased and they would be entitled for Rs.40,000/- each on the head of parental consortium relying on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd vs. Nanu Ram and others, (2018) ACJ 2782 . Thus, prayed for allowing the appeal. 13. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance company would submit that the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal is just and proper, which needs no interference. 14. Thus, prayed for allowing the appeal. 13. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance company would submit that the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal is just and proper, which needs no interference. 14. Further learned counsel submits that in the absence of any material to establish the income of the deceased, the tribunal has rightly assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month, which also needs no interference. Further, the learned counsel submits that the claimants would not be entitled for Rs.40,000/- each towards parental and filial consortium and submits that the claimants would be entitled to maximum of Rs.70,000/- on the conventional heads, which includes love and affection. Thus, prays for dismissal of the appeal. 15. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, the points that would arise for consideration are: 1. Whether the income assessed by the tribunal at Rs.6,000/- per month of the deceased is proper and correct? 2. Whether the claimants would be entitled for future prospects at 40% of the assessed income? 3. Whether the claimants no.2 to 4 would be entitled for parental and filial consortium as contended by the appellants-claimants? 16. The answer to the above Point No.1 would be in the negative and point Nos.2 and 3 in the affirmative for the following reasons. 17. The accident which had taken place on 06.04.2015 at about 7.45 p.m. involving cycle and tractor bearing No.MH-10/S-3903 and the accidental death of Sanjay Kishan Beble, is not in dispute in this appeal. The claimants are before this court praying for enhancement of compensation. The claimants stated that the deceased was earning income of Rs.800/- per day by doing labour work, but, the claimants have not placed any material to establish the income of the deceased. In the absence of any material to establish the income of the deceased, the tribunal or courts to assess the income notionally. The tribunal has assessed the income notionally at Rs.6,000/- for the accident of the year 2015, is on the lower side. This court and Lok Adalath normally while settling the accident claims of the year 2015, would assess the notional income at Rs.8,000/- per month. In the absence of any material on record to establish the income, we feel it appropriate to assess the income notionally at Rs.8,000/- per month. This court and Lok Adalath normally while settling the accident claims of the year 2015, would assess the notional income at Rs.8,000/- per month. In the absence of any material on record to establish the income, we feel it appropriate to assess the income notionally at Rs.8,000/- per month. The deceased was aged about 29 years, The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited V/s. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) AIR SC 5157 , has held that the claimants would be entitled for adding of 40% of assessed income towards future prospects, wherever the deceased was less than 40 years. In the instant case, in view of the above decision, the claimants would be entitled to adding of 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects. 18. The claimants No.2 to 4 are children of the deceased, who are aged about 7, 4 and 2 years respectively as on the date of filing the claim petition. The claimant Nos.2 to 4 have lost love and affection of the father in the beginning of their life. Hence, we deem it appropriate to award Rs.40,000/- each on parental consortium as held in the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd vs. Nanu Ram and others, (2018) ACJ 2782 . Thus, the claimants would be entitled for the following modified compensation under different heads: 1 Loss of dependency Including future prospects 8000X40%=3200+8000=11200/- 11200-1/4=2800-11200=8400 8400X12X17=17,13,600/- 17,13,600/- 2 Towards conventional heads 70,000/- 3 Towards parental consortium (Rs.40,000X3) 1,20,000/- 4 Towards medical bills 1,810/- TOTAL 19,05,410/- 19. The claimants would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.19,05,410/- as against 9,94,900/- awarded by the tribunal with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. In view of the same, I pass the following : ORDER The appeal is allowed in part. The claimants are entitled to a total n enhanced compensation of Rs.9,10,510/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization of the amount. Respondent-Insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount with accrued interest within six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. The deposit and apportionment would be as ordered by the tribunal in the same proportion. Draw the modified award accordingly.