Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1392 (KAR)

Manjula v. Managing Director

2020-07-13

S.G.PANDIT, SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

body2020
JUDGMENT S.G. Pandit, J. - The claimants-appellants are in appeal not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded vide the judgment and award dated 11.01.2017 in MVC No.200/2015 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Additional M.A.C.T., Haveri. The claimants are the wife, children and mother of the deceased. 2. A claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation for the accidental death of one Parashuram in a road traffic accident which took place on 08.03.2015 involving motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-14/ED-8031 and KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-42/F-768. 3. The accident and accidental death is not in dispute in this appeal. The claimants/appellants have sought for enhancement of compensation. 4. It is stated that the deceased was working as a mason earning Rs.25,000/- per month as income. He was aged 32 years as on the date of the accident. The claimants in support of their case examined claimant No.1 wife of the deceased as PW-1 apart from marking Exs.P-1 to 13. The respondents examined RW-1 and marked Ex.R-1. 5. The Tribunal on assessing the material placed before it awarded total compensation of Rs.9,04,000/- with interest at 7% p.a. under following heads: S. No. Nature of the Heads compensation Rs. 1 Loss of dependency Rs.4,500x12x16 8,64,000/- 2 For the loss of consortium 10,000/- 3 Loss of love and affection 10,000/- 4 Loss of estate 10,000/- 5 For transportation and funeral expenses 10,000/- Total 9,04,000/- 6. While awarding the compensation, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month, deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased and applied multiplier of 16. The claimants being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal are before this Court in this appeal praying for enhancement of compensation. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the Corporation. Perused the trial Court records. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. He further submits that the deceased was working as a mason earning Rs.25,000/- per month, but the Tribunal ignoring the evidence of PW-1 assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month, which is on the lower side. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. He further submits that the deceased was working as a mason earning Rs.25,000/- per month, but the Tribunal ignoring the evidence of PW-1 assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month, which is on the lower side. He further submits that the notional income while settling the accident claims before the Lok Adalat for the claim of the year 2015 would be more than the income assessed by the Tribunal. Further, he submits that the Tribunal also failed to award any compensation on the head of future prospects. Since deceased was aged 32 years, the claimant would be entitled for adding 40% of the assessed income towards future prospectus. Further he submits that claimant Nos.2 to 4 are the children and mother of the deceased, they would be entitled for parental and filial consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each. Thus, he prays for enhancement of compensation. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent- Corporation would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is a just compensation which needs no interference. Further, he specifically contends that the deceased was working as a coolie and there is no fixed income to the deceased. As such, the claimants would not be entitled for compensation on the head of future prospects. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the appeal. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the trial Court records, the following points would arise for consideration: i) Whether the income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.6,000/- per month is proper and correct? ii) Whether the claimants would be entitled for adding 40% of the income towards future prospects? iii) Whether the claimants/appellants are entitled for enhancement of compensation? 11. Answer to point No.(i) would be in the negative and point Nos.(ii) and (iii) would be in the affirmative for the following: REASONS 12. The accident is of the year 2015. The accident involving motorcycle bearing No.KA-14/ED-8031 and KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-42/F-768, and the accidental death of Parashuram is not in dispute in this appeal. 13. The claimants are wife, children and mother of the deceased Parashuram. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the claimants that the deceased was doing mason work and was earning Rs.25,000/- per month. The accident involving motorcycle bearing No.KA-14/ED-8031 and KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-42/F-768, and the accidental death of Parashuram is not in dispute in this appeal. 13. The claimants are wife, children and mother of the deceased Parashuram. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the claimants that the deceased was doing mason work and was earning Rs.25,000/- per month. But there is no material on record to establish the income of the deceased at Rs.25,000/- per month. In the absence of material on record to establish the income of the deceased, the Tribunal assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/-, which is on the lower side. This Court and the Lok-Adalaths, while settling the accident claims of the year 2015, would normally assess the notional income at Rs.8,000/- per month in the absence of material on record to establish the income. Hence, in the present case, in the absence of material on record to establish the income, we deem it appropriate to assess the income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month notionally. 14. The deceased was aged 32 years as on the date of the accident. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) AIR SC 5157 , has held that the claimants would be entitled for adding of 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects, wherever the deceased was aged below 40 years. 15. The learned counsel for the respondent/ insurance company contends that the claimants are not entitled to any amount of compensation on the head of 'future prospects' since the deceased was not having any fixed income. But the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company vs. Hem Raj and others, (2018) ACJ 05 (SC) has clarified that there cannot be distinction where there is a positive evidence of income and where minimum income is determined on guesswork for awarding compensation on the head of future prospects. In that circumstance, we hold that the claimants would be entitled for adding of 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects, since the deceased was aged 32 years as on the date of the accident. 16. The Tribunal has deducted 1/4th of the assessed income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and applied multiplier 16', which in our opinion, needs no interference. 16. The Tribunal has deducted 1/4th of the assessed income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and applied multiplier 16', which in our opinion, needs no interference. Accordingly, after adding 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects and deducting 1/4th of the same towards personal and living expenses and by adopting multiplier 16' the claimants would be entitled to Rs.16,12,800/- towards loss of dependency including future prospects as mentioned below: Rs.8000 + Rs.3,200 = Rs.11,200/- Rs.11200- Rs.2,800 = Rs.8,400/- Rs.8,400 x 12 x 16 = Rs.16,12,800/- 17. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/- on conventional heads, but as per the decision in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants would be entitled for an amount of Rs.70,000/- on conventional heads. 18. Further, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd vs. Nanu Ram and others, (2018) ACJ 2782 claimants 2 and 3 being minor children, who have lost the love and affection, parental guidance, care and affection of the father are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards parental consortium and claimant No.4 being mother of the deceased, who lost love of her son is entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards filial consortium. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.18,02,800/- on the following heads:- S. No. Heads Amount (in Rs.) 1. Towards loss of dependency including future prospects 16,12,800/- 2. On conventional heads 70,000/- 3. Towards parental and filial consortium 1,20,000/- Total 18,02,800/- 19. In the result, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER 1. The appeal filed by the claimants is allowed in part. 2. The judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled for total compensation of Rs.18,02,800/- as against Rs.9,04,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 3. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 4. The respondent-insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount before the Tribunal within six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. 5. The apportionment and deposit would be in the same proportion as ordered by the Tribunal. 6. Draw the modified award accordingly.