Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 2007 (KAR)

Mahadev @ Mahadevappa @ Mahadevraj v. Vijay

2020-10-06

G.NARENDAR, M.I.ARUN

body2020
JUDGMENT G.Narendar, J. - Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 Insurance Company. 2. Though the appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of both the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 3. The appellants are the parents and brother of one Bhima Shankar S/o. Mahadev Koli @ Sunagar, who died in an accident which occurred in wee hours on 29.06.2015, when the deceased along with his friends were proceeding in a car bearing registration No.MH- 12/BM-9506 on Kolhapur-Sangli road, at that time a tanker bearing registration No.MH-09/BC-7873, which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the car. As a result of the impact, the son of the appellant Nos.1 and 2 suffered fatal injuries and succumbed on the spot. 4. At the time of accident the deceased was aged about 33 years and was working as a Supervisor in New Sangam Bakery, Miraj and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month and apart from that he was also carrying out agricultural work and was earning Rs.80,000/- per annum. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the liability has not been disputed by the insurer. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that they have satisfied the award amount. The appellants are before this Court being aggrieved by the inadequacy of the compensation amount. It is contended that the tribunal erred in taking the notional income of the deceased only at Rs.7,000/- per month and as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, the notional income of the deceased for the accident that occurred in the year 2015 is to be determined at Rs.8,000/-. He would further submit that the tribunal has failed to award compensation towards loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. In view of the above he prays that the appeal be allowed and the appellants be awarded enhanced compensation. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 Insurance Company fairly submits that the tribunal ought to have adopted the notional income as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, which is an established practice in the absence of proof of income. 7. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 Insurance Company fairly submits that the tribunal ought to have adopted the notional income as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, which is an established practice in the absence of proof of income. 7. In the present case, the accident had taken place in the year 2015; the claimants have not produced any documentary proof with regard to the income of the deceased. Therefore, the income of the deceased has to be assessed at Rs.8,000/- p.m. as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) AIR SC 5157 , 40% has to be added to the monthly income of the deceased towards future prospects. Thus, the monthly income is determined at Rs.11,200/- (Rs.8,000/- + 40%). The deceased was a bachelor, if 50% is deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the monthly dependency of the claimants would be Rs.5,600/- (Rs.11,200/- x 50%). To the said monthly income of the deceased, the multiplier of 16' is taken into account as the age of the deceased was 33 years as on the date of accident. Thus, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.10,75,000/- (Rs.5,600/- x 12 x 16) on account of the loss of dependency. 8. Further, the appellant Nos.1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Nanu Ram,2018 SCC 1546, they are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. Thus, the appellant Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to Rs.80,000/- on account of loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. In addition, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. Appellant No.3 being major, the tribunal has rightly disallowed any compensation in favour of appellant No.3. 9. Thus, in all the appellants-claimants are entitled to Rs.11,85,200/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. 11. Appellant No.3 being major, the tribunal has rightly disallowed any compensation in favour of appellant No.3. 9. Thus, in all the appellants-claimants are entitled to Rs.11,85,200/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. 11. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. before the tribunal within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the rate of interest shall be 8% p.a. The enhanced award shall be disbursed as directed the tribunal. 12. The Registry to draw the decree accordingly.