Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 940 (KAR)

Bhagirathi v. General Manager, M. S. R. T. C.

2022-07-21

P.KRISHNA BHAT

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is at the instance of the of the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Judgment and Award dated 16.01.2008 in MVC No. 2107/2002 passed by the learned III-Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) and Additional M.A.C.T., Belgaum (for short 'the Tribunal'). 2. Brief facts are that deceased-Yojana was proceeding in a car bearing registration No. MH-07/B-0376 and on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending bus bearing registration No. MH-12/Q-8815, it dashed against the car resulting in death of the deceased. 3. The claim petition was resisted by the respondent-Transport Corporation by filing its written statement. 4. After trail and hearing the learned counsel on both sides and perusing the records, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part awarding compensation of Rs. 3,61,000/- with interest thereon at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. 5. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellant, in support of his appeal, strenuously contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and it is required to be enhanced. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent- Corporation vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal MFA No. 22705 of 2010 has passed the award after examining the records and the award being just and reasonable, there is no merit in the appeal and it is required to be dismissed. 7. The accident took place on 20.06.2002. One Yojana is the deceased. Learned Tribunal has allowed the claim petition awarding compensation of Rs. 3,61,000/- with interest thereon at 6% per annum with a further direction that only the son of the deceased is entitled to receive the compensation. The only question that arises is, whether the compensation so awarded is just and reasonable and whether there is any case made out for enhancing the compensation so awarded? 8. Deceased was said to be aged 38 years at the time of the accident. The appropriate multiplier applicable to this case is 15'. Since no acceptable proof was furnished before the learned Tribunal, regarding the actual income of the deceased, it took the notional income at Rs. 3,000/- per month. Since the said finding is a reasonable one having regard to the date of the death of the deceased in the year MFA No. 22705 of 2010 2002 I affirm the same. Since no acceptable proof was furnished before the learned Tribunal, regarding the actual income of the deceased, it took the notional income at Rs. 3,000/- per month. Since the said finding is a reasonable one having regard to the date of the death of the deceased in the year MFA No. 22705 of 2010 2002 I affirm the same. Since the deceased was a married person 1/3rd of her monthly income is required to be deducted towards her personal expenses. In view of the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others1, 40% of the established income is required to be added towards loss of future prospects. Accordingly, the loss of dependency to which the claimant is entitled to is calculated as under: Rs. 3000 + Rs. 1,200 (40%) = Rs. 4,200 Rs. 4,200 - Rs. 1,400 (1/3rd) = Rs. 2,800 Rs. 2,800 x 12 x 15 = Rs. 5,04,000/- 9. Since the deceased left behind a son, a sum of Rs. 40,000/- is required to be awarded towards loss of parental consortium and another sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards funeral expenses and loss of estate. Accordingly, the claimant is entitled to total compensation, which is as follows: (2017) 16 SCC 680 MFA No. 22705 of 2010 Head Amount (in Rs. ) Towards loss of dependency along with Rs. 5,04,000/- future prospects Towards loss of parental consortium Rs. 40,000/- Towards funeral expenses and loss of Rs. 30,000/- estate. Total Rs. 5,74,000/- 10. Learned Tribunal has already awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,61,000/- and hence, the claimant is entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs. 2,13,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. 11. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed in part. 12. The respondent-Corporation is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. 13. In view of disposal of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed off accordingly.