Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 994 (KAR)

Govindaraj @ Govindarajulu v. Jeethendra J Rathod

2020-06-08

S.G.PANDIT, V.SRISHANANDA

body2020
JUDGMENT S.G.Pandit, J. - The claimants/appellants are before this Court in this appeal not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded under the judgment and award dated 01.12.2018 passed in M.V.C. No.12/2018 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-V, Ballari (for short 'the Tribunal'), praying for enhancement of the compensation. 2. Even though the appeal is listed for Admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally and disposed of by this judgment. 3. The claimants are the parents and brother of the deceased C.Karthik. The claimants filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') seeking compensation for the death of C.Karthik in a road traffic accident that occurred on 02.10.2017. It is stated that on 02.10.2017 when C.Karthik was proceeding from Ballari to Bengaluru in Mahindra Scorpio bearing registration No.KA-03 MX-6116, a lorry bearing registration No.MH-26 H-6267, came from opposite side at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the Mahindra Scorpio vehicle, due to which the deceased sustained severe head injury and other injuries all over his body. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Ramapura. Thereafter, he was shifted to VIMS Hospital, Bellari for better treatment, and from there he was shifted to South City Hospital, Bengaluru, in an ambulance for further treatment. He took treatment there for about four days and thereafter he was discharged from the said hospital. Again, he was shifted to VIMS Hospital, Ballari. Subsequently, C.Karthik succumbed to the injuries on 08.10.2017. It is stated that the deceased had completed his diploma course and was studying engineering course at Ballari Institute of Technology and Management, Ballari. He was aged abut 20 years as on the date of the accident. 4. On issuance of notice, respondents appeared, and respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed their written statement. Respondent No.1 adopted the written statement of respondent N0.2 In their written statement, the respondents denied the entire claim averments. The insurance company also contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle and it was also not having a valid permit and fitness certificate as on the date of the accident. The insurance company also contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle and it was also not having a valid permit and fitness certificate as on the date of the accident. It was also contended that there was violation of terms and conditions of the policy. 5. The claimants, in support of their case, examined claimant No.1 as P.W.1 and marked the documents as Exs.P.1 to P.27. On behalf of the insurance company, R.W.1 was examined and documents Exs.R.1 and R.2 were marked. The Tribunal on scrutiny of the entire material on record, both oral and documentary, awarded a total compensation of Rs.5,42,037/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, on the following heads: 1. Loss of dependency Rs. 3,24,000/- 2. Loss of estate Rs. 25,000/- 3. Love and affection Rs. 25,000/- 4. Funeral expenses Rs. 10,000/- 5. Ambulance bills and Medical bills Rs. 1,58,037/- Total Rs. 5,42,037/- While awarding the above compensation, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month, applied multiplier of 18 and deducted 50% of the income since the deceased was a bachelor. Claimants not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal are before this Court in this appeal. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent No.3- insurance company. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very meager having regard to the qualification and the age of the deceased. It is his submission that the Tribunal committed an error in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month. Further it is submitted that the claimants had placed on record Ex.P.11 to P.22-marks cards and to show admission of the deceased to the engineering course. It is his submission that this Court, while settling the accidental claims of the year 2017, normally assess the notional income of a person at Rs.10,250/- per month. But, in this case, since the deceased had completed his diploma course and was pursuing engineering course, a minimum income of Rs.15,000/- per month ought to have been assessed by the Tribunal. He further submits that the Tribunal also failed to award any compensation towards future prospects. But, in this case, since the deceased had completed his diploma course and was pursuing engineering course, a minimum income of Rs.15,000/- per month ought to have been assessed by the Tribunal. He further submits that the Tribunal also failed to award any compensation towards future prospects. Relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) ACJ 2700 , learned counsel submits that the claimants would be entitled for an addition of 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects. It is also his submission that the claimants would be entitled for a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards conventional heads and Rs.40,000/- each towards filial consortium as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Limited v. Nanu Ram and Others, (2018) ACJ 2782 . Thus, he prays for allowing the appeal. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.3-insurance company would submit that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just compensation which needs no interference. He further submits that the deceased was not an earning member of the family and he was a student pursuing his engineering course and therefore, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.3,000/- per month is proper and correct. The learned counsel also submits that the claimants would not be entitled for compensation towards future prospects since the deceased was not having any employment. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the appeal. 9. On hearing the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the records, the following points would arise for our consideration: i) Whether the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.3,000/- per month is proper and correct? ii) Whether the claimants would be entitled for addition of 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects? 10. The answer to the above points would be in the negative and affirmative respectively, for the following reasons: a) The accident that had taken place on 02.10.2017 involving Mahindra Scorpio vehicle bearing registration No.KA-03 MX-6116 and the lorry bearing registration No.MH-26/H-6267, and the accidental death of C.Karthik is not in dispute in this appeal. The claimants' appeal is for enhancement of the compensation. The claimants' appeal is for enhancement of the compensation. It has come on record that the deceased, as on the date of the accident, had completed his diploma course and was pursuing 5th Semester Engineering course at BITM Engineering College, Ballari. To substantiate the said claim, claimants have placed on record Exs.P.11 to P.22 which are marks cards of diploma and Ex.P.22 marks card of 5th Semester Engineering, which clearly establish that the deceased was pursuing his course in engineering. This Court and the Lok Adalats, while settling the accidental claims of the year 2017, normally would take Rs.10,250/- per month as the notional income of a person. In the instant case, it is on record and it is established that the deceased had completed his diploma course and was pursuing V Semester Engineering course. He had a bright future and on his diploma qualification he would have got respectable job and salary. Therefore, the notional income of the deceased could be assessed at Rs.15,000/- per month. Accordingly, the notional income of the deceased assessed at Rs.15,000/- per month. b) The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal failed to award any compensation towards future prospects. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case (supra) and Hem Raj Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, (2018) ACJ 5 , has held that the claimants would be entitled for an addition of 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Hem Raj's case (supra) has held that where the compensation on the head future prospects is to be awarded, there cannot be any distinction where the income is established and where minimum income is determined on guess work. Therefore, the appellants/claimants would be entitled to addition of 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects. 11. Taking the notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month, adding 40% towards future prospects and thereafter deducting 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased and applying the multiplier 18', the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.22,68,000/- towards 'loss of dependency'. 12. The appellants/claimants would be entitled for compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards conventional heads since the deceased was a bachelor. 12. The appellants/claimants would be entitled for compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards conventional heads since the deceased was a bachelor. Claimant Nos.1 and 2 are parents of deceased C.Karthik, and have lost their son and his love and affection at the evening of their life. Therefore, we award a sum of Rs.40,000/- each to claimant Nos.1 and 2 towards filial consortium as held by the Hon'ble apex Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Limited (supra) 13. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards ambulance bills and medicals bills would not require any interference and the same is left undisturbed. 14. On reassessment, the claimants would be entitled for the following modified compensation: 1. Loss of dependency Rs. 22,68,000/- (including future prospects) 2. Conventional heads Rs. 50,000/- 3. Filial consortium (Rs.40,000/- each to claimant Nos.1 and 2) Rs. 80,000/- 4. Ambulance bills and Rs. 1,58,037/- Medical bills Total Rs. 25,56,037/- Thus, in all, the claimants would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.25,56,037/-, as against Rs.5,42,037/- awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 01.12.2018 passed in M.V.C. No.12/2018 passed by the Tribunal is hereby modified. The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.25,56,037/-, as against Rs.5,42,037/- awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The apportionment and deposit of the compensation shall be in the proportion as ordered by the Tribunal.