Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1271 (KAR)

Chandrakala v. Rama Naik

2020-06-29

S.G.PANDIT, V.SRISHANANDA

body2020
JUDGMENT S G Pandit, J. - The claimants are the wife and children of one Malakappa @ Mallikarjun who are before this Court in this appeal praying for enhancement of compensation not being satisfied with the award passed in judgment and award dated 20.02.2015 in MVC No.924/2013 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and M.A.C.T., Ranebennur. 2. Claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation for the death of Malakappa @ Mallikarjun, who died in a road traffic accident, which occurred on 06.08.2013, involving motorcycle bearing No.KA-27/Q-8012 and a tractor trailer bearing No.KA-17/TA-6932. The accident and the accidental death of Sri. Malakappa @ Mallikarjun is not in dispute in this appeal. The Tribunal based on material placed on record, awarded total compensation of Rs.8,94,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization on the following heads: 1. Loss of dependency Rs.8,19,000.00 2. Loss of love and affection Rs.30,000.00 3. Towards transportation and funeral expenses Rs.10,000.00 4. Loss of consortium Rs.10,000.00 5. Towards loss of estate Rs.25,000.00 Total Rs.8,94,000.00 3. While awarding the compensation, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month, added 30% of the assessed income towards future prospects, deducted 1/4th of the income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and adopted multiplier 14'. The claimants not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation are before this Court in this appeal. 4. Heard the learned counsel for appellants/claimants and the learned counsel for the insurance company. Perused the material on record. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.5,000/- per month is on the lower side. The learned counsel would submit that the deceased was possessing lands individually to an extent of 9 acres and along with family to an extent of 10 acres. In support of the same, Ex.P.10 to 19, ten RTC extracts were produced before the Tribunal but the Tribunal failed to consider the same while determining the monthly income of the deceased and thus, they seek for enhancement. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the insurance company would submit that the monthly income assessed by the Tribunal is proper and correct in the absence of any cogent material to establish the income of the deceased. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the insurance company would submit that the monthly income assessed by the Tribunal is proper and correct in the absence of any cogent material to establish the income of the deceased. Further he submits that the Tribunal has erred in adding 30% of the assessed income towards future prospects. He submits that relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) AIR SC 5157 , the claimants would be entitled for adding of 25% of the assessed income towards future prospects and thus prays for reducing the quantum of compensation. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for parties, the points that would arise for our consideration are as under: i) Whether the income assessed by the tribunal at Rs.5,000/- per month of the deceased is proper and correct? ii) Whether the Tribunal adding 30% of the assessed income towards future prospects is correct? 8. We answer both the points in negative for the following: REASONS 9. The accident is of the year 2013 and the deceased was aged 42 years as on the date of the accident. It is stated that the deceased was doing agricultural work and was possessing landed properties. The claimants have placed on record Ex.P.10 to 19, ten RTC extracts, which would indicate that some of the landed properties were standing in the name of deceased and some of the properties were standing in the name of his family including the deceased. But no material whatsoever to indicate the income of the deceased is placed on record. The Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- notionally. But the notional income assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side. This Court and the Lok-Adalaths while settling the accident claims of the year 2013 normally assess the monthly income at Rs.7,000/- per month. In the instant case, in the absence of any material to establish the income of the deceased, we deem it appropriate to assess the income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month. 10. As stated above, the deceased was aged 42 years as on the date of the accident. In the instant case, in the absence of any material to establish the income of the deceased, we deem it appropriate to assess the income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month. 10. As stated above, the deceased was aged 42 years as on the date of the accident. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi supra has laid down a principle that wherever the deceased, who died in the accident, was aged 40 to 50 years, the claimants would be entitled for adding of 25% of the assessed income towards future prospects. In the instant case also by following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi supra, we reduce the future prospects awarded by the Tribunal at 30% to 25%. 11. There are four claimants. As such, the deduction of 1/4th of income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased taken by the Tribunal is proper and correct. The Tribunal has adopted multiplier 14'. It is also proper and correct. Hence, the claimants would be entitled to Rs.11,02,584/- towards loss of dependency including future prospects. Rs.7000 + Rs.1,750 = Rs.8,750/- Rs.8,750 Rs.2187 = Rs.6563/- Rs.6563 x 12 x 14 = 11,02,584/- 12. The claimants 2 to 4 being minor children of the deceased, who are aged about 14, 11 and 9 years, respectively, as on the date of the accident, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd vs. Nanu Ram and others, (2018) ACJ 2782 , would be entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards parental consortium, since they lost the love and affection of their father at their very early age. 13. Further, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi supra, the claimants would be entitled to Rs.70,000/- on conventional heads. Accordingly, the claimants would be entitled to the modified compensation on following heads: 1. Loss of dependency including future prospects Rs.11,02,584/- 2. Towards parental consortium Claimants 2 to 4 Rs.40,000/- each Rs.1,20,000/- 3 On conventional heads Rs.70,000/- Total Rs.12,92,584/- 14. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. 15. Consequently, the claimants are entitled to total compensation Rs.12,92,584/- as against Rs.8,94,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 16. Loss of dependency including future prospects Rs.11,02,584/- 2. Towards parental consortium Claimants 2 to 4 Rs.40,000/- each Rs.1,20,000/- 3 On conventional heads Rs.70,000/- Total Rs.12,92,584/- 14. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. 15. Consequently, the claimants are entitled to total compensation Rs.12,92,584/- as against Rs.8,94,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 16. The insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 17. The deposit and apportionment would be as ordered by the Tribunal in the same proportion. Draw the modified award accordingly.