Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1106 (KAR)

Chandrayya Acharya v. Nagamma

2020-06-17

SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

body2020
JUDGMENT Suraj Govindaraj, J. - The appellants are before this Court aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 30.08.2013 passed by The Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Udupi ('Tribunal', for short) in MVC No. 238/2012. 2. The case of the appellants is that on 26.10.2011 at about 23.00 hours, appellants' son by name Kiran Acharya was riding a motorcycle from Udupi to Mangalore, when an Ambulance driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the said motorcycle near Budagi Petrol Pump, Bada Yermal village, due to which impact, the appellants' son sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same on the way to the hospital. Hence, the appellants approached the Tribunal seeking compensation and the tribunal after considering the evidence on record has awarded Rs.4,01,000/- as compensation under the following heads: Sl.No. Heads of accounts Rupees (Rs.) 1 Loss of dependency 3,51,000/- 2 Loss of love and affection 20,000/- 3 Loss of estate 10,000/- 4 Loss of funeral expenses, transportation of dead body 20,000/- Total 4,01,000/- 3. Ms.Mamatha Shetty, learned counsel for the appellants contends that the income of the deceased has not been considered properly, the tribunal has not taken into consideration the future prospects of the deceased and furthermore, the multiplier 13' which has been taken into consideration on account of the age of the mother of the deceased and not that of the deceased and hence, she submits that the Judgment of the Tribunal suffers from various deficiencies and the compensation needs to be enhanced. 4. Per contra, Sri.A.N.Krishnaswamy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 would contend that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is proper and correct, all the factors relevant thereto have been considered and there is no need for any enhancement and therefore, the appeal ought to be deceased. 5. Heard Ms.Mamatha Shetty, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri.Guruprasad.B.R., learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri.A.N.Krishnaswamy, lerarned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused papers. 6. Heard. Admit. 7. With the consent of both the sides, the above appeal is taken up for final disposal at the stage of orders itself. 8. The nature and occurrence of the accident, coverage of the offending vehicle by respondent-Insurance Company are neither in question nor in dispute. 9. A perusal of the records indicates that the accident occurred on 26.10.2011. Admit. 7. With the consent of both the sides, the above appeal is taken up for final disposal at the stage of orders itself. 8. The nature and occurrence of the accident, coverage of the offending vehicle by respondent-Insurance Company are neither in question nor in dispute. 9. A perusal of the records indicates that the accident occurred on 26.10.2011. The Tribunal has taken into consideration the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.4,500/- p.m. and on account of the deceased being a bachelor, the age of the youngest parent of the deceased was taken into consideration for the purpose of identifying the multiplier. I am of the considered view that on both these counts the Tribunal has erred. In that the Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the notional income as per the chart which has been fixed for the purpose of Lok-adalath. Hence, the notional income fixed for the purpose of Lok-adalat for the year 2011 when the accident occurred being Rs.6,500/- p.m, the same ought to have been taken into consideration by the Tribunal. The deceased being aged about 24 years as on the date of the accident, proper multiplier would be 18' as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation s case, (2009) 6 SCC 121 . 10. The deceased being aged 24 years, the Tribunal has also not awarded future prospects. As such, on the date of the death future prospects @ 40% is required to be added to the income of the deceased. The deceased being a bachelor 50% of his incomes is required to be deducted towards his personal expenses and the balance 50% is required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of calculation of compensation. Hence, loss of dependency would be Rs.6,500/- x 40% = 9100/- (minus 50%) i.e. Rs. 4,550x 12 x 18 = Rs.9,82,800/-. 11. A perusal of the records indicates that the deceased was survived by parents. The Tribunal having awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.20,000/- towards transportation of dead body and funeral ceremony, the same is on the lower side. 4,550x 12 x 18 = Rs.9,82,800/-. 11. A perusal of the records indicates that the deceased was survived by parents. The Tribunal having awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.20,000/- towards transportation of dead body and funeral ceremony, the same is on the lower side. In terms of ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , the parents of the deceased would be entitled to loss of parental consortium at Rs.40,000/-. Hence, the same is enhanced by Rs.20,000/-. 12. Thus, in view of the above, the comparative table of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and by this Court is under: Sl. No Heads of account Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court Enhanced compensation 1 Loss of dependency 3,51,000/- 9,82,800/- 6,31,800/- 2 Loss of consortium 20,000/- 40,000/- 20,000/- 3 Loss of estate 10,000/- 10,000/- - 4 Loss of funeral expenses, transportation of dead body 20,000/- 20,000/- - Total 4,01,000/- 10,52,800/- 6,51,800/- 13. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is partly allowed. ii. The impugned is hereby modified. The appellant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs. 6,51,800/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of realization excluding the period of 343 days being the delay in filing the above appeal towards which the appellants would not be entitled for interest in terms of order of this Court dated 17.06.2016.