Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1336 (KAR)

K. Venkateshappa v. Bushamani Mallesh

2020-07-06

S.G.PANDIT, V.SRISHANANDA

body2020
JUDGMENT S.G. Pandit, J. - The claimants not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal are before this court praying for enhancement of compensation granted under judgment and award dated 15.06.2015 in MVC No.1246/2013 on the file of MACTXII, Ballari. The claimants are parents and younger brother of the deceased Hanumantha. 2. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act claiming compensation for the death of Hanumantha in a road traffic accident involving a lorry bearing No.AP-20/TB-3399 that occurred on 20.06.2013 at about 10.30 p.m. 3. The accident in question and the accidental death of Hanumantha is not in dispute in this appeal. The first claimant the father of the deceased got examined himself as PW1 apart from marking Ex.P1 to 12. The respondents have not let any evidence before the tribunal. Analyzing the material before it, the tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.6,85,200/- with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. 4. While awarding the above compensation, the tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month and applied multiplier of 14 taking the age of the younger parent and added 30% to the assessed income towards future prospects. The claimants not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation are before this court in this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance company. Perused the trial court records. 6. The learned counsel for the appellantsclaimants would submit that the accident is of the year 2013 and the income assessed by the tribunal at Rs.6,000/- per month of the deceased is on the lower side. He invited attention of this court to Ex.P8 and P9 the driving licence and R.C. extract. He submits that the deceased was the owner and driver of the goods Auto and he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month which he was contributing the entire amount to his family. Thus, he prays for enhancement in the monthly income. 7. It is his further submission that the tribunal committed an error in taking multiplier at 14 taking the age of the mother. The tribunal ought to have taken multiplier of 18 taking the age of the deceased, who was aged of 22 years at the time of accident. Thus, he prays for enhancement in the monthly income. 7. It is his further submission that the tribunal committed an error in taking multiplier at 14 taking the age of the mother. The tribunal ought to have taken multiplier of 18 taking the age of the deceased, who was aged of 22 years at the time of accident. Further he submits that the tribunal committed an error in adding only 30% to the assessed income towards future prospects. He further submits that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited V/s. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) AIR SC 5157 , the claimants would be entitled for addition of 40% to the assessed income towards future prospects. Thus, he prays for allowing the appeal by enhancing the compensation. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance company submits that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is just compensation, which needs no interference. It is his submission that even though the claimants have placed on record Ex.P8 and P9 the driving licence and R.C. extract, but the claimants have not produced any proof to establish the income of the deceased. As such, the tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month is proper and correct. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the trial court records, the points would arise for consideration are : 1. Whether the income of the deceased assessed at Rs.6,000/- per month is proper and correct? 2. Whether the claimants would be entitled for addition of 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects? 3. Whether the multiplier of 14 applied by the tribunal taking the age of the mother is proper and correct? 10. Answer to the above points are in the negative for the following reasons: 11. The accident is of the year 2013. The claimants state that the deceased was owning goods Auto and he was driving the same. Since he was driving himself the goods Auto, he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. But, the claimants have not placed on record any document to show the exact income earned by the deceased. The accident is of the year 2013. The claimants state that the deceased was owning goods Auto and he was driving the same. Since he was driving himself the goods Auto, he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. But, the claimants have not placed on record any document to show the exact income earned by the deceased. However, they have placed on record the driving licence and R.C. Ex.P8 and P9 which would establish that the deceased himself was the owner of the goods Auto and he was also possessing the driving licence to drive the goods Auto. 12. This court while assessing the notional income of the year 2013 for unskilled worker would assessed at Rs.6,000/- per month. In the instant case, the deceased was having technical qualification of driving. As such, we are of the view that the income assessed by the tribunal at Rs.6,000/- per month is on the lower side. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we deem it appropriate to assess the notional income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month. The deceased was aged 22 years as on the date of accident. As per the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi supra, the claimants would be entitled for addition of 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects wherever the deceased was aged below 40 years. Hence, the claimants would be entitled for addition of 40% of assessed income towards future prospects. Multiplier of 14 applied by the tribunal taking the age of the mother, is not proper. The tribunal ought to have taken multiplier at 18 taking the age of the deceased. Hence, the proper multiplier would be 18. The deceased was unmarried and the deduction taken by the tribunal at 50% is proper and correct. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for the following modified compensation: 1 Loss of dependency including future prospects 8,000+40%=3200+8000=11200 11200-50%=5600 5600X18X12= 12,09,600 2 Conventional heads 50,000/- TOTAL 12,59,600/- 13. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for total compensation of Rs.12,59,600/-. In view of the foregoing discussions, the points are answered accordingly. Appeal is allowed in part. The appellants-claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.12,59,600/- as against the amount of compensation awarded by the tribunal at Rs.6,85,200/- with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for total compensation of Rs.12,59,600/-. In view of the foregoing discussions, the points are answered accordingly. Appeal is allowed in part. The appellants-claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.12,59,600/- as against the amount of compensation awarded by the tribunal at Rs.6,85,200/- with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. The respondent Insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount awarded by this court with up to date interest within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Draw modified award accordingly.