Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 933 (KAR)

Saralabai v. Charanjeet Singh, Deedarsingh Lamba

2020-06-01

S.G.PANDIT, V.SRISHANANDA

body2020
JUDGMENT S.G. Pandit, J. - The appellants-claimants are before this court in this appeal not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal under judgment and award dated 06.12.2017 in MVC No.2867/2015 on the file of IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, and Additional MACT, Belagavi, praying for enhancement of compensation. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the claimants are wife and daughters of the deceased Balasaheb Patil. It is stated that on 02.11.2014 when the deceased was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing registration No.MH-09/AU-7210, a Chevrolet Beat vehicle No.MH-15/DC-8220 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle, due to which the deceased sustained fatal injuries and he was immediately taken to the Hattarki hospital, Gadhinglaj and was admitted from 02.11.2014 to 03.11.2014. Thereafter, he was shifted to Sidhagiri Hospital, Kaneri, where during treatment he succumbed to injuries. It is stated that the claimants have spent more than three lakhs for the treatment of the deceased. It is stated that the deceased was aged about 49 years and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by doing agricultural work. 3. On issuance of notice, respondent No.1 remained absent and respondent No.2 -Insurance company appeared and filed its statement of objection. In the statement of objection, it is contended that there is a delay of 10 days in lodging the FIR and it is also contended that it is concocted case. It is also further contended that the driver of the Car bearing No.MH- 15/DC-8220 was not holding valid and effective driving license and there is violation of policy conditions. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 4. The claimants in support of their case, examined first claimant as PW1 and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to P22. Official of respondent No.1 was examined as RW1 and got marked the documents as Ex.R1 to R3. The tribunal after assessing both oral and documentary evidence, awarded compensation of Rs.9,00,781/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. on the following heads: 1 Loss of dependency 5,85,000/- 2 Medical expenses 1,65,781/- 3 Loss of love and affection 50,000/- 4 Loss of estate 25,000/- 5 Loss of consortium to P1 50,000/- 6 Funeral and transportation expenses 25,000/- Total 9,00,781/- 5. The tribunal after assessing both oral and documentary evidence, awarded compensation of Rs.9,00,781/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. on the following heads: 1 Loss of dependency 5,85,000/- 2 Medical expenses 1,65,781/- 3 Loss of love and affection 50,000/- 4 Loss of estate 25,000/- 5 Loss of consortium to P1 50,000/- 6 Funeral and transportation expenses 25,000/- Total 9,00,781/- 5. While awarding the above compensation the tribunal deducted 50% of the income towards personal expenses of the deceased and assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.7,500/- per month. The claimants, not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation are before this court in this appeal. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent - Insurance company. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants mainly urged two grounds. Firstly, he contended that the tribunal erred in taking 50% deduction towards personal expenses on the ground that the claimant Nos.2 and 3 got married during the pendency of the claim petition. It is his submission that as on the date of accident both the claimants were wholly dependent on the income of the deceased and were unmarried. Therefore, the tribunal ought to have taken deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased at 1/3rd by taking principles laid down in Sarala Verma(smt) and Others V/s. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 . Further, the learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the tribunal failed to award any compensation under the head of future prospects. The claimants would entitled for adding 25% of the income towards future prospects as per principle laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited V/s. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) AIR SC 5157 . 8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent- Insurance company would submit that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is just compensation, which needs no interference. Further, he submits that the evidence on record would show that the claimant Nos.2 and 3 got married as on the date of evidence. Therefore, the tribunal is justified in taking 50% deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased. It is also his submission that the claimants are not entitled for adding of 25% of income towards future prospects. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the appeal. 9. Therefore, the tribunal is justified in taking 50% deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased. It is also his submission that the claimants are not entitled for adding of 25% of income towards future prospects. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the appeal. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record the following points would arise for consideration: 1. In the facts of the case, whether the tribunal is justified in taking 50% deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased? 2. Whether the claimants - appellants would be entitled for adding 25% income towards future prospects? 10. Answer to the above points are in the negative and affirmative respectively. 11. The accident occurred on 02.11.2014 involving motor cycle bearing registration No.MH- 09/AU-7210 and car bearing registration No.MH- 15/DC-8220 and death of Balasaheb Patil is not in dispute. The claimants are before this court for enhancement of compensation on the above stated two grounds. The deceased was aged about 49 years. He had left the wife and two children as on the date of accident. Admittedly, both the daughters-claimant Nos.2 and 3 were unmarried as on the date of accident. The compensation is to be determined as on the date of accident and not on any other subsequent dates. As such, the tribunal could not have taken note of the subsequent marriage of claimant Nos.2 and 3, while taking deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased. By taking note of the family members and dependants of the deceased, the proper deduction would be 1/3 in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Sarala Verma (Supra). Thus, the deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased could be taken at 1/3. 12. The decision stated by the learned counsel for the respondent in this regard in the case of New India Assurance Co.Ltd. rep. by Sr.Divisional Manager V/s. Sri. David T. and another, (2012) ILR(Kar) 2859 and MFA No.20759/2012 and MFA No.24357/2012, would not apply to the facts of the present case. In the above said decisions, the issue involved was as to what would be appropriate deduction to be taken when there are more than two dependants. In the above decisions the issue with regard to marriage of the daughters subsequent to the accident was not involved. 13. The tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.7,500/- per month. In the above said decisions, the issue involved was as to what would be appropriate deduction to be taken when there are more than two dependants. In the above decisions the issue with regard to marriage of the daughters subsequent to the accident was not involved. 13. The tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.7,500/- per month. The accident is of the year 2014, the income assessed by the tribunal is proper and correct and it needs no interference. But, the tribunal failed to award any compensation on the head of future prospects. The claimants-appellants are entitled to adding 25% income of the deceased towards future prospects in view of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (quoted supra). Thus, we hold that the claimants would be entitled for adding 25% of income towards future prospects. Taking note of the above, the claimants would be entitled for modified enhanced compensation as follows: 1 Loss of dependency 7,500+25% = 1,875 9375-1/3=3,125/- 6,250x12x13=9,75,000 9,75,000/- 2 Medical expenses 1,65,781/- 3 Conventional Head 70,000/- Total 12,10,781/- 14. The claimants would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.12,10,780/- as against Rs.9,00,781/-awarded by the tribunal with interest at 6% p.a. 15. The appeal is allowed in part. Thus, the claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.3,10,000/-. Out of the enhanced compensation, the first claimant would be entitled for Rs.1,10,000/-, second and third claimants are entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- each, respectively with interest.