IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5011 OF 2012[MV] CONNECTED WITH MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5010 OF 2012 [MV], MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5009 OF 2012 [MV] AND MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5007 OF 2012 [MV] IN MFA NO.5011/2012:
BETWEEN SRI. CHHHAGAN LAL, S/O. NARASA RAM, NO.3, VIJAYANANDAN LAYOUT, ANJANEYA TEMPLE, BANGALORE-560 034 ... APPELLANT [BY SRI. VEERANNA G.TIGADI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S.N.HATTI, ADVOCATE] AND 1. BHURA RAM, S/O. KHETARAM, SRI. SWAROOP FURNITURES NO.13/A, VAYANANDANA LAYOUT, ANJANEYA TEMPLE ROAD, HEBBAL, BANGALORE-560 024.
2. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., 2ND FLOOR JP & DEVI JAMBUKESWAR ARCADE NO.69, MILLER ROAD, BANGALORE-560 052. ... RESPONDENTS [BY SRI. V.N.JAGADEESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-1.
SRI. A.N.KRISHNASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2] THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.1.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.8175/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT-V AND COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, IN PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
* * * IN MFA NO.5010/2012:
BETWEEN SRI. DURGARAM, S/O. CHETHANRAM, AGED 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT:NO.987, SUBHAKSHA APPARTMENTS, 8TH A, CROSS, OPP. BSNL OFFICE, RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 098 ... APPELLANT [BY SRI. VEERANNA G.TIGADI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S.N.HATTI, ADVOCATE] AND 1. BHURA RAM, S/O. KHETARAM, SRI. SWAROOP FURNITURES, NO.13/A, VAYANANDANA LAYOUT, ANJANEYA TEMPLE ROAD, HEBBAL, BANGALORE-560 024.
2. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., 2ND FLOOR JP & DEVI JAMBUKESWAR ARCADE NO.69, MILLER ROAD, BANGALORE-560 052. ... RESPONDENTS [BY SRI. V.N.JAGADEESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-1. SRI. A.N.KRISHNASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2] THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.1.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.8173/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT-V AND COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, IN PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
* * * IN MFA NO.5009/2012:
BETWEEN SRI. HAJARI SUTARA, S/O. KARUNARAM, AGED 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.3, VIJAYNANDANA LAYOUT, ANAJANEYA TEMPLE ROAD, KEMPAPURA, BANGALORE-560 034. ... APPELLANT [BY SRI. VEERANNA G.TIGADI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S.N.HATTI, ADVOCATE] AND 1. BHURA RAM, S/O. KHETARAM, SRI. SWAROOP FURNITURES NO.13/A, VAYANANDANA LAYOUT, ANJANEYA TEMPLE ROAD, HEBBAL, BANGALORE-560 024.
2. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., 2ND FLOOR JP & DEVI JAMBUKOSWAR ARCADE NO.69, MILLER ROAD, BANGALORE-560 052. ... RESPONDENTS [BY SRI. V.N.JAGADEESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-1. SRI. A.N.KRISHNASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2.] THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.1.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.8174/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT-V AND COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, IN PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
* * * IN MFA NO.5007/2012:
BETWEEN 1. SMT. KUNTA DEVI, W/O. LATE CHANDA RAM, AGED 28 YEARS, 2. GHAN SHARMA, AGED 8 YEARS, S/O. LATE CHANDA RAM, 3. DEVI LAL, S/O. LATE CHANDA RAM, AGED 6 YEARS, APPELLANT NOS.2 AND 3 ARE THE MINORS, REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER, NATURAL GUARDIAN APPELLANT NO.1.
4. SMT. GULABI, W/O. LATE AMBA RAM, AGED 55 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT:
NO.21, 2ND MAIN, 2ND CROSS, NETHAJINAGAR, H.A. FARM POST, KEMPAPURA, BANGALORE-560 024. ... APPELLANTS [BY SRI. VEERANNA G.TIGADI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S.N.HATTI, ADVOCATE] AND 1. BHURA RAM, S/O. KHETARAM, SRI. SWAROOP FURNITURES, NO.13/A, VAYANANDANA LAYOUT, ANJANEYA TEMPLE ROAD, HEBBAL, BANGALORE-560 024.
2. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., 2ND FLOOR JP & DEVI JAMBUKESWAR ARCADE NO.69, MILLER ROAD, BANGALORE-560 052. ... RESPONDENTS [BY SRI. V.N.JAGADEESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-1.
SRI. A.N.KRISHNASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2] THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.1.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.7259/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT-V AND COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, IN PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
* * * THESE MFAs COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT All these appeals are preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Member, MACT-V and Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru city by its common Judgment and Award dated 16.01.2012.
No.8174/2009 and MFA No.5007/2012 arises out of MVC No.7259/2009.
3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/Insurance Company.
4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that;
On 30.06.2009 at about 4.30 a.m. the petitioners in MVC Nos.8175/2009, 8173/2009 and 8174/2009 and the deceased persons by name Saravan Kumar, Jagadeesh Suthar and Chanda Ram were travelling in a Scorpio car bearing reg. No.KA-04/MG-1175 along with other friends to go to Rajasthan to attend a wedding ceremony. One Hanuman Suthar was driving the said vehicle. When they were thus proceeding, near Hiriyur, Sira, at about 6.45 a.m., the driver of the said vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and hit the road side bridge and due to the impact of the said accident, the vehicle toppled and the inmates of the vehicle sustained grievous injuries. In the said accident, Saravan Kumar, Jagadeesh Suthar and Chanda Ram succumbed to the injuries.
Respective claim petitions were filed seeking compensation before the Tribunal. On behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 8 were examined and several documents were marked in their evidence.
The claimants in MVC No.7259/2009 are the wife, two minor children and mother of deceased Chanda Ram. The claimants in MVC Nos.8175/2009, 8173/2009 and 8174/2009 are the injured.
The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, by its Common Judgment and Award dated 16.01.2012 awarded a compensation of Rs.6,11,000/- to the claimants in MVC No.7259/2009. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.2,64,960/- to the claimant in MVC No.8175/2009, a sum of Rs.58,000/- to the claimant in MVC No.8173/2009 and a sum of Rs.3,12,760/- to the claimant in MVC No.8174/2009 along with interest at 6% p.a.
It was held that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly liable to pay the entire compensation amount with interest to the petitioners therein and the 2nd respondent being the insurer was directed to pay the compensation amount.
5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the claimant/s that the total compensation awarded is on the lower side in as much as the Tribunal has not properly considered the avocation and the income of the respective victims. It is submitted that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the nature of work of the victims as they were skilled carpenters hailing from Rajasthan and they would easily earn not less than Rs.25,000/- p.m. The Tribunal has taken the income at Rs.4,000/- p.m. in respect of the victims which is very much on the lower side and there is no basis for such notional income to be taken when the victims are skilled carpenters hailing from Rajasthan. It is further submitted that the Tribunal ought to have considered the salary certificate produced at Exs.P18 and 35 in respect of the victims in MVC No.7259/2009 and MVC No.8175/2009. The learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the future prospects and the total compensation awarded to the claimants for the death of Chanda Ram in MVC No.7259/2009 is on a lower side and accordingly seeks to enhance the compensation.
6. The learned counsel for the claimants further submits that in MVC Nos.8175/2009, 8173/2009 and 8174/2009, the claimants are the injured and the Tribunal has not at all appreciated the medical evidence with regard to the disability suffered by the respective claimants. The total compensation awarded under different heads is therefore not commensurate with the injuries sustained by them. Accordingly, seeks to enhance the compensation.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company on the other hand vehemently contended that the claimants have utterly failed to establish that the victims were skilled labourers and they were hailing from Rajasthan and it is also not established that they were having income as pleaded by them. There is absolutely no evidence to establish the income. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal was justified in taking the notional income of the victims at Rs.4,000/- p.m. The learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal after considering the entire material has awarded compensation in respect of each of the claim petitions in accordance with law and no enhancement is called for and accordingly, seeks to dismiss the respective appeals.
8. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased in MVC No.7259/2009 and other injured persons in MVC Nos.8175/2009, 8173/2009 and 8174/2009 along with others were traveling in a Scorpio car bearing reg. No.KA-04/MG- 1175, driven by one Hunuman Suthar. The said vehicle met with an accident near Hiriyur owing to the rash and negligent driving by its driver. In the said accident, 3 persons succumbed to the injuries and others sustained simple as well as grievous injuries.
9. The Tribunal after considering the documentary evidence on record such as Ex.P1-FIR with complaint, Ex.P2- chargesheet, Ex.P3-Mahazar, Ex.P4-sketch, Exs.P5, 11 and 16-Inquest mahazars, Exs.P6, 12 and 17–postmortem reports as well as Ex.P7-IMV Report came to the conclusion that the accident was on account of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Scorpio car bearing reg. No.KA-04/MG-1175.
In the said accident 3 persons died and several others sustained injuries. Even otherwise the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and the said vehicle being insured with respondent No.2 are not seriously disputed.
IN MFA No.5011/2012 [MVC No.8175/2009]:
10. The appellant-Chhagan Lal is the injured/claimant. The Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,64,960/- under the following heads:
Particulars Amount in Rs.
1. Towards pain & agony. … 35,000 2. Towards medical expenses [including Rs.10,000 towards conveyance, food and nourishment and attendant charges].
3. Towards loss of income during treatment period.
… 1,30,000 … 16,000 4. Towards loss of future income. … 48,960 5. Towards loss of amenities and unhappiness. … 25,000 6. Towards future medical expenses. … 10,000 Total 2,64,960 11. The appellant has produced Ex.P31-wound certificate, which shows that he has suffered the following injuries:
1) Communited supracondylar fracture of right knee with fracture of femur with bone loss.
2) Fracture of mandible on right side.
3) Fracture of bilateral zygomatic bone, right orbit.
4) Sutured wound over right knee with abrasion over right foot.
He has been diagnosed for communited compound fracture of supra condylar fracture right knee with mandible fracture. He has been operated under general anesthesia and wound debridement was done. Surgery was done on 30.06.2009 where open reduction internal fracture of supracondylar fracture ® femur has been done and wound debridement was done open reduction internal fixation of fracture mandible with plate and screws was also done.
12. According to the appellant, due to the accidental injuries, he has suffered permanent disability and he cannot discharge his work as he was doing earlier. He was working as a carpenter and earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- p.m. as salary by working under one Durga Ram, claimant in MVC No.8173/2009, examined as P.W.5. According to P.W.5, the appellant was working as a carpenter in the proprietorship firm viz., Sri Lakshmi Furniture. However, there is no substantial evidence to show that the appellant was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- p.m. working under P.W.5. In the absence of the same, the Tribunal has taken the notional income at Rs.4,000/- p.m. However, considering the avocation of the appellant and also considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the notional income of the appellant is taken as Rs.6,000/- p.m.
13. P.W.7 is the doctor, who has assessed the disability suffered by the appellant on account of the accidental injuries. According to P.W.7, on examination of the appellant, he found that the appellant was having inability to squat, difficulty to sit cross legged and to stand on ® lower limb. The disability has been assessed at 30%. He has stated that the fractures are united in lower end of ® femur with orthopaedic implant in situ.
14. Though P.W.7 is not a treated doctor. He has assessed the disability of the appellant and opined that the appellant was suffering from physical disability to an extent of 30%. In the cross-examination of P.W.7, he is not specific as to whether the said disability is to the whole body or to the upper limb. At one point of time, he states that the disability assessed is to the affected limb and also states that the assessment is also same to the whole body. He has further stated in the cross-examination that 1/3rd of the particular affected limb to be considered to arrive at the whole body disability. Considering the aforesaid evidence of P.W.7, I am of the view that the functional disability to the whole body suffered by the appellant be taken as 10% as against 6% assessed by the Tribunal.
15. The appellant was aged about 28 years at the time of accident and therefore, appropriate multiplier is ‘17’. Having assessed the notional income of the appellant at Rs.6,000/- p.m. and the disability to the whole body at 10%, he is entitled for a sum of Rs.1,22,400/- [Rs.6,000 x 10% x 12 x 17] towards loss of income on account of disability as against Rs.48,960/- awarded by the Tribunal.
16. Considering the nature of injuries suffered and also the period of treatment, the compensation awarded towards pain and suffering is enhanced to Rs.60,000/- from Rs.35,000/-. A compensation of Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards conveyance, food, nourishment and attendant charges as against Rs.10,000/-. The compensation of Rs.16,000/- awarded towards loss of income during the treatment period is enhanced to Rs.24,000/-. The compensation of Rs.10,000/- awarded towards future medical expenses is unaltered. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of amenities and unhappiness, the same is enhanced to Rs.35,000/-. The sum of Rs.1,20,000/- awarded towards medical expenses is based on the documents produced by the appellant and the same is not disturbed. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.3,86,400/- as against Rs.2,64,960/- awarded by the Tribunal.
IN MFA No.5010/2012 [MVC No.8173/2009]:
17. The appellant-Durga Ram is the injured/claimant in MVC No.8173/2009. The Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.58,000/- under the following heads:
Particulars Amount in Rs.
18. The appellant claims to be the Proprietor of Sri Lakshmi Furniture. According to him, he was an income tax assessee and getting income over Rs.50,000/- p.m. and due to the accidental injuries, his income has been substantially reduced. However, in order to substantiate the income, no document has been produced. Except the self-serving statement of the appellant who was examined as P.W.5, there is no evidence on record to show that he was earning a sum of Rs.50,000/- p.m. The Tribunal has assessed the notional income of the appellant at Rs.4,000/- p.m. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the notional income of the appellant is taken as Rs.6,000/- p.m.
19. The doctor-P.W.7 has examined the appellant on 14.01.2011. It is stated that the appellant sustained fracture proximal phalynges of right ring and little finger, lacerated wound over chin and abrasions. He was an in-patient from 30.06.2009 to 03.07.2009. He underwent surgery closed reduction and k-wire fixation of right finger and little fingers on 01.02.2009. P.W.7 has stated that there is a loss of grip strength by about 25% of right hand. The appellant has suffered physical disability of 5%. The Tribunal was of the view that the said disability will not affect the avocation of the appellant as a contractor. A sum of Rs.5,000/- was awarded towards loss of amenities and unhappiness.
20. Considering the evidence of P.W.7 and in the facts and circumstances of the case, a sum of Rs.20,000/- is awarded towards loss of amenities and unhappiness as against Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. A sum of Rs.25,000/- is awarded towards pain and agony as against Rs.15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. A sum of Rs.12,000/- is awarded as against Rs.8,000/- towards loss of income during the period of treatment. The compensation of Rs.30,000/- awarded towards medical expenses is unaltered. A sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards conveyance, nourishment, food and attendant charges. In all the appellant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.97,000/- as against Rs.58,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
IN MFA No.5009/2012 [MVC No.8174/2009]:
21. The appellant-Hajari Suthara is the injured/claimant in MVC No.8174/2009. The Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,12,760/- under the following heads:
Particulars Amount in Rs.
unhappiness.
6. Towards future medical expenses. 10,000 3,12,760 Total 22. The appellant/claimant is a carpenter working under one Durga Ram, who is examined as P.W.5. According to appellant/claimant, he was getting an income of Rs.15,000/- as salary and apart from the said income, he was getting more than Rs.10,000/- p.m. Ex.P24 is the salary certificate issued by P.W.5. According to the appellant, P.W.5 was running one Sri Lakshmi Furniture, wherein he was working as a carpenter. However, there is no convincing evidence to show that the appellant was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- p.m. as salary and getting more than Rs.10,000/- p.m. in addition to the said salary. Apart from the oral testimony of the appellant and P.W.5, there is no other corroborative piece of evidence establishing the definite income of the appellant. There is no document with regard to the aforesaid Sri Lakshmi Furniture. The Tribunal has taken the notional income of the appellant at Rs.4,000/- p.m. However, considering the avocation of the appellant and also in the facts and circumstances of the case, the notional income of the appellant as taken as Rs.6,000/- p.m.
23. The appellant has suffered the following injuries as per Ex.P20-wound certificate:
(1) Fracture dislocation of left hip.
(2) Inter trochantric fracture of right femur.
(3) Fracture of shaft of right femur.
(4) Fracture of upper end of right tibia.
24. Exs.P20 and 21 i.e. wound certificate and discharge summary show that the appellant has taken treatment as in-patient from 30.06.2009 to 03.07.2009. The evidence of P.W.7-doctor discloses that the appellant was operated on 01.07.2009, with closed reduction and internal fixation with recon nail bone for fracture of right femur and closed reduction of the dislocation done, right knee, effusion was also aspirated.
25. On examination of the appellant, P.W.7 has found that he was complaining of limping, inability to walk long distance, difficult to walk on uneven surfaces, difficulty to climb stair, inability to squat, difficulty to sit cross legged.
P.W.7 has found the following impairments:
“He walks with limp. There is linear surgical scar present over right buttock of 6 c.m. length. There is a limb length shortening of 2 cm. on right side, left foot is in equinus.
P.W.7 has assessed the physical disability to the whole body at 58%.
26. In the cross-examination, P.W.7 has stated that the disability assessed by him is to the affected limb. However, he has further stated that the assessment is also same to the whole body. He says that 1/3rd of the particular affected limb shall be considered to arrive at the disability to the whole body. The Tribunal has taken the permanent disability to the whole body at 7%. The Tribunal has observed that except fracture of right femur, the fracture of tibia and left hip are united and fracture of right femur is in the process of healing and therefore, it was observed that the fracture has not resulted in non-union or infection and it is in the process of healing. However, considering that there is restriction of the movement at knee and ankle and also considering the avocation of the appellant, the disability assessed at 7% by the Tribunal is on a lower side. In the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the evidence of P.W.7, the disability is assessed at 20% to the whole body.
27. The appellant was aged about 32 years at the time of the accident and therefore proper multiplier applicable is “16”. The income of the appellant is taken at Rs.6,000/-
p.m. and the disability is assessed at 20%. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for a compensation of Rs.2,30,400/- [Rs.6,000 x 20% x 12 x 16] towards loss of future income due to disability as against Rs.53,760/- awarded by the Tribunal.
28. The compensation of Rs.35,000/- awarded towards pain and sufferings is enhanced to Rs.60,000/- considering the fracture dislocation of left hip and inter trochantric fracture of right femur. A sum of Rs.24,000/- awarded towards loss of income during the treatment period is enhanced to Rs.36,000/-. A sum of Rs.25,000/- awarded towards loss of amenities and unhappiness is enhanced to Rs.40,000/-. Another sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges in addition to Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards future medical expenses. The compensation of Rs.1,65,000/- awarded towards medical expenses is unaltered. In all the appellant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.5,51,400/- as against Rs.3,12,760/- awarded by the Tribunal.
IN MFA No.5007/2012 [MVC No.7259/2009]:
29. The claimants are the widow, two minor children and mother of the deceased. Since their relationship with the deceased was not disputed, the Tribunal held that they are the legal representatives of deceased Chanda Ram. The Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.6,11,000/- under the following heads:
Particulars Amount in Rs.
1. Towards loss of dependency. … 5,76,000 2. Towards loss of love and affection. … 10,000 3. Towards Transportation of dead body and funeral and obsequies.
… 10,000 4. Towards loss to the estate. … 10,000 5. Towards loss of consortium. … 5,000 Total 6,11,000 30. According to the claimants, the deceased was a carpenter by profession hailing from Rajasthan and he was a skilled labourer earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- p.m. Salary certificate is produced at Ex.P18. It is their contention that the said salary certificate was issued by the proprietor of one ‘Lakshmi Furniture’ by name Durga Ram, who is the claimant in MVC No.8173/2009. According to the said document, the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- p.m. as salary. The said Durga Ram has been examined as P.W.5. However, he has not produced any document to substantiate that he was running ‘Lakshmi Furniture’ and he was the proprietor of the said firm. No documents have been produced in connection with the said ‘Lakshmi Furniture’ apart from the said salary certificate issued by P.W.5 in respect of deceased Chanda Ram. There is no convincing evidence to show that the deceased was being paid Rs.15,000/- p.m. as salary. The Tribunal has taken the notional income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- p.m. In the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking into consideration the avocation of the deceased, I deem it just and proper to take the notional income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- p.m. as against Rs.4,000/- p.m. taken by the Tribunal.
31. As per Ex.P17-postmortem report, the age of the deceased was shown as ‘30’ years. Apart from the said document, there is no document or convincing material to prove the age of the deceased. The deceased has left behind the wife, two minor children and mother as dependants. Hence, 1/4th has been rightly deducted by the Tribunal towards personal expenses of the deceased. 40% of the income has to be added towards future prospects in view of the Judgment in the case of National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157.
32. The deceased being aged 30 years, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company would contend that the multiplier applicable in respect of a person aged 30 years is ‘16’. The multiplier applicable to the age group between 26 to 30 years is ‘17’ as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court at para 42 of the Judgment in the case of SARALA VERMA [SMT] AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER, reported in [2009]6 Supreme Court Cases 121, which reads as under:
“42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.”
33. Since the income of the deceased having been assessed at Rs.6,000/- p.m. and by adding 40% towards the future prospects and deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased, the same comes to Rs.6,300/-
p.m. and therefore, the claimants are entitled for a compensation of Rs.12,85,200/- [Rs.6,000 + 2,400 = Rs.8,400 – 2,100 = Rs.6,300 x 12 x 17] towards loss of dependency as against Rs.5,76,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
34. A sum of Rs.70,000/- is awarded towards conventional heads such as loss of consortium, loss to the estate, funeral expenses and towards obsequies.
35. Claimant Nos.2 and 3 are minor children of the deceased and claimant No.4 is mother of the deceased. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, a sum of Rs.25,000/- each is awarded to claimant Nos.2 to 4 towards loss of love and affection. In all, the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.14,30,200/- as against Rs.6,11,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
Accordingly, I pass the following ORDER MFA Nos.5011/2012, 5010/2012, 5009/2012 and 5007/2012 are allowed in part. The Judgment and Award dated 16.01.2012 passed in MVC Nos.5011/2012, 5010/2012, 5009/2012 and 5007/2012 respectively on the file of the Member, MACT-V and Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru City is hereby modified.
The appellant in MFA No.5011/2012 is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.3,86,400/- with interest at 6% p.a. as against Rs.2,64,960/- awarded by the Tribunal.
The appellant in MFA No.5010/2012 is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.97,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. as against Rs.58,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
The appellant in MFA No.5009/2012 is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.5,51,400/- with interest at 6% p.a. as against Rs.3,12,760/- awarded by the Tribunal.
The appellants in MFA No.5007/2012 are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.14,30,200/- with interest at 6% p.a. as against Rs.6,11,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
The insurer/respondent No.2 shall deposit the compensation amount in the respective cases within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.
Sd/- JUDGE.
Ksm*