IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT M.F.A.NO.7920 OF 2014 (MV) BETWEEN:
SMT. JAYAMMA, W/O. JAGADEESH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/O NAGARANAVILE VILLAGE BAGUR HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573116. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. K.R.LINGARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI. MURUGAN, S/O CHINNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O MANUNATHAT ANUBHAVA NILAYA FINANCE CORPORATION MARKET ROAD, 15TH CROSS, SOMESHAPURAM, TUMKUR-572111.
2. MANAGER THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, RAGHAVENDRA COLONY, B.H. ROAD, TIPTUR-572001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.S.LAKSHMINARASAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B.C. SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2 R1 – NOTICE D/W V/O DATED 03/1/2018) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.02.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.960/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, CHANNARAYAPATNA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The claimant is in appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded under the judgment and award dated 25/02/2014 in M.V.C.No.960/2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Channarayapatna.
2. The claimant is wife of one late Jagadeesh, filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation for the death of Jagadeesh in a road traffic accident. It is stated that on 14-7-2011, when the deceased was proceeding on bicycle on the left side of the road, near Navile village, motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-06-EC-5540 driven by its rider came in a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the bicycle of the deceased. Due to which, the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Tiptur, where he succumbed to the injuries. It is stated that the deceased was an agriculturist and was earning more than Rs.6,000/- per month. He was aged about 50 years as on the date of accident.
3. On issuance of notice, respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared before the Tribunal but only respondent No.2- Insurer filed its statement of objections denying the claim petition averments. Further it is stated that there is one day delay in lodging the complaint and it is a hit and run case and in collusion with the first respondent and the police the charge sheet came to be filed by mentioning the insured bike number and the name of the rider. Hence, respondent No.2 is not liable to pay the compensation.
4. The claimant-wife of the deceased examined herself as PW-1 and marked documents Exs.P-1 to P-8. No evidence was lead and no documents were marked on behalf of the respondents.
5. The Tribunal on appreciating the material on record, awarded total compensation of Rs.5,43,000/- with interest
While awarding the above compensation, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month and applied multiplier ‘13’ as the deceased was aged 50 years as on the date of accident. The claimant not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is before this Court in this appeal, praying for enhancement of compensation.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent-insurer. Perused the material on record.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the assessment of the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month is on the lower side. The deceased was earning more than Rs.6,000/- by doing agricultural work. It is his further submission that the Tribunal failed to award any compensation on the head of ‘Future prospects’. The claimant would be entitled for ‘Future prospects’ at the rate of 25% of the assessed income. Thus, prays for enhancement of compensation.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2– Insurer would submit that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just compensation, which needs no interference. Further he submits that the claimant would be entitled for ‘Future Prospects’ at the rate of 10% of the assessed income and not 25% as claimed by the appellant.
9. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the material placed on record, the following points would arise for consideration in the facts and circumstances of the case.
1) Whether the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.6,000/- per month is proper and correct?
2) Whether the claimant would be entitled for ‘Future Prospects’ and at what rate?
Answer to the above points are that the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side and the claimant would be entitled for ‘Future Prospects’ at the rate of 10% of the assessed income for the following reasons.
10. The accident occurred on 14-7-2011 involving motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-06-EC-5540 and the accidental death of one Jagadeesh are not in dispute in this appeal. The claimant’s appeal is for enhancement of compensation. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.6,000/- per month is on the lower side. The claimant states that the deceased was doing agricultural work and was earning more than Rs.6,000/- per month. This Court and the Lok Adalath while determining the compensation in Motor Vehicles Accident cases would normally take notional income for the accidents of the year 2011 at Rs.6,500/- per month. In the instant case also, the claimant has not placed any material/document on record to indicate the exact income of the deceased. In the absence of any document/material to indicate the exact income of the deceased, the income will have to be assessed notionally. It would be appropriate to assess Rs.6,500/- per month as notional income of the deceased for determination of the compensation.
11. The next contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal failed to award any compensation on the head of ‘Future Prospects’. The claimant would be entitled for compensation on the head of ‘Future Prospects’ as the deceased was aged 50 years and his income is assessed at Rs.6,500/- per month. But the question is as to whether the claimant would be entitled for 25% or 10% of the assessed income. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 at paragraph No.59.4 has held as follows:
“59.4. In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.”
12. On reading of the above portion of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, it would make it clear that the one would be entitled for adding 25% of the assessed income, if the deceased was aged between 40 to 50 years and 10% of the assessed income if the deceased was aged 50-60 years. As the deceased was aged 50 years as on the date of accident, the claimant would be entitled for adding 10% of the assessed income towards ‘Future Prospects’. In the instant case, the deceased was aged 50 years as on the date of accident and accordingly multiplier ‘13’ was applied. Thus, the claimant-appellant would be entitled for modified enhanced compensation as follows:
1. Loss of Dependency including Future Prospects 6500+10%=7150-
50%=3575x12x13=5,57,700 Amount in (Rs.) 5,57,700 2. Conventional Heads 75,000 Total 6,32,700 13. Thus, the claimant would be entitled for enhanced modified compensation of Rs.6,32,700/- as against Rs.5,43,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization as awarded by the Tribunal.
The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the above extent. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.
Sd/- JUDGE SMJ