Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 962 (KAR)

J. Mercy v. Sukumar Bapuso Aparadh

2020-06-03

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 04.02.2011 in MVC No.208/2010 on the file of FTC -II, Dharwad, sitting at Hubli, praying for enhancement of compensation. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the claimants the wife and children of one deceased D.Selvaraj, filed the claim petition claiming compensation for the accidental death of D.Selvaraj in a road accident. It is stated that on 04.01.2010, the deceased who was working as driver in KSRTC bus was entrusted to drive the bus to Pune. On 05.01.2010 at about 3.30 hours, when the said bus was going near Tarihal chek post on Hubli-Dharwad bye-pass road from Gabbur side towards Dharwad, at that time, one Canter lorry bearing No.MH.10/Z-1533 came in a rash and negligent manner without observing traffic rules, dashed to the KSRTC bus which was driven by the deceased D. Selvaraj. As a result, D.Selvaraj sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. It is stated that the deceased was getting a salary of Rs.24,500/- per month and he was aged about 49 years as on the date accident. 3. On issuance of notice, the respondents appeared before the tribunal. Only respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed its written statements. Whereas, respondent No.1 remained absent. In its written statement the insurer denied the claim petition averment and further contended that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the deceased. Further, the Insurance company also contended that the petition is bad for non joinder of parties. It is also contended that the driver of canter lorry was not holding valid driving licence as on the date of accident. 4. The claimants in support of their case, examined claimant No.1 as PW1 apart from marking Ex.P1 to P8. The respondent-Insurance company examined one witness as RW1 and marked Ex.R1 insurance policy. The tribunal on careful consideration of the material on record, awarded the compensation of Rs.18,60,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. 5. While awarding the above compensation the tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.17,500/- and adopted the multiplier of 13. The claimants not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation are before this court in this appeal. 6. The tribunal on careful consideration of the material on record, awarded the compensation of Rs.18,60,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. 5. While awarding the above compensation the tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.17,500/- and adopted the multiplier of 13. 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 Insurance company. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants prays for enhancement of the compensation on two grounds. First ground is that the tribunal failed to award compensation towards future prospects. The learned counsel relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited V/s. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) AIR SC 5157 , submits that the claimants would be entitled for adding 30% of the income since the deceased was aged of 49 years and permanent employment. Further, the learned counsel submits that the claimants would be entitled for a sum of Rs.70,000/- under conventional head, which the tribunal was failed to award. Thus, prayed for enhancement of compensation. 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, it is contended that the appeal has been filed belatedly and the claimants would not be entitled for interest for the delayed period. He also refers to the order dated 30.09.2015 of this court in this appeal. Wherein this court has condoned the delay subject to the condition that in case of enhancement of compensation the claimants would not be entitled for any interest for the delayed period of 1180 days. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the following point would arise for our consideration: 1. Whether the claimants would be entitled for adding 30% of the income towards future prospects? 10. Answer to the above point is in the affirmative for the following reasons: 11. The accident occurred on 05.01.2010 involving KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-01/F-8459 and Canter lorry bearing No.MH-10/Z-1533 and accidental death of to D.Selvaraj, is not in dispute in this appeal. The claimants are before this court for enhancement of the compensation on the ground of not granting future prospects. The accident occurred on 05.01.2010 involving KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-01/F-8459 and Canter lorry bearing No.MH-10/Z-1533 and accidental death of to D.Selvaraj, is not in dispute in this appeal. The claimants are before this court for enhancement of the compensation on the ground of not granting future prospects. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) has laid down that the claimants would be entitled for adding 30% income towards future prospects, wherever the deceased had a permanent job and whenever the deceased was aged between 40 and 50 years. In the instant case, since the deceased was a permanent employee of KSRTC and aged 49 years, the claimants would be entitled to adding 30% towards future prospects. After adding 30% towards future prospects the loss of dependency would be : 17,500X30/100 = 5250+17,500=22750/- 22,750X1/3 = 7,583(22,750-7,583=15,167/-) 15,167X12X13=Rs.23,66,052/- 12. Further, the claimants would be entitled for a sum of Rs.70,000/- under conventional heads as against Rs.40,000/- awarded by the tribunal. Thus, claimants would be entitled for the modified compensation under the following heads: 1 Loss of dependency including future prospects 23,66,052/- 2 Conventional heads 70,000/- TOTAL 24,36,052/- 13. Thus, The claimants would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.24,36,052/- as against Rs.18,60,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. 14. The claimants would not be entitled for interest for the delayed period of 1180 days as per the order dated 30.09.2015. The apportionment and deposit would remain as ordered by the tribunal. 15. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount with accrued interest within six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. Draw the modified award accordingly.