Karnataka High Court
Shantavva W/O Nagappa Gangal vs H H Doni on 23 March, 2010
Author: Jawad Rahim
Bench: Jawad Rahim
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 'lififoay Of March 2010
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE V.GOPALA (;'OwDAj
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTI__C.E 3_AwAD'RAI{Im' _V
MFA NO.5885/2003-, 6452/20:03 5453./2-003'-.___ I I I
IN MFA NO.588S/2003
BETWEEN:
AGED ABOUT '3SI'r*EAII=gs:»,'.v
OCC HOUSEHOLD .wORKfi,
R/O BA£3_ALKOT. " -- V. 1: A
1. SMT,SHANTA.;.WA WZO ,AIAAc.A9jPA.%c3ANGAL,
2. W/O ,MA'LlIA EEA GANGAL,
AGEDABOIJT 651--YEA.RS,
OC'c'---E1'Q,USEI§OL'D wQ__RI<,
"" 5;/Sc}; BAG1A'LKCTa."- '
I I * _ ..APPELLANTS
A I {Ely Sn' Fagdish Patil, Adv.}
AND _ I " .
SRI"m.~I.VDO:\.II
AGED MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS
TALUK & DISTRICT, GADAG
"=21'~..THEjUNITED INDIA INSURANCE co
";Tr:»", POLE BADAMI ROAD, GAOAG
' ~F5'Y ITS BRANCH MANAGER.
..RESPONDENTS
[By Sri.B.C.Seet%Tarama Rae, Adv. for R1
Sr'i.M.Af'U§'1 Pormappa, Adv for R2]
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
HEAGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10-O6--O3
PASSED IN MVC No.26"//O2 ON THE FILE OE THE PRINCIPAL
CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DN) & IMFC AND MEMBER, MACT-2,
BAGALKOT, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
COMPENSATION.
aw
BETWEEN:
IN MFA NO.6452/2003
K
1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD
GADAG BRANCH OFFICE
THROUGH ITS REGIONAL.-JOEEICE,-'_C _. _ V
If 25, SHANKARANARAYANA B.Lf1[v.D=£:NG._
M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE -21 'I I " '
REP BY ITS DEPUTY MA-NAGER . I
SMT K.S.VAIJAYANTHI;_ " * - -'
_ :;A.PHPEALLANT
[By Sri. B'.~.C.Sec9thaIaré;.a Rao, Adm}
1. SMT.SHANTAWA._j*VI 'V'-I
W/Q N!."*GAPPL*°' G.AN.GAL/"I _
AGED A;EOuT'--3S1yEARs.II_v '
2. '
_ .... MALILAPPA GANGAL,
' AGEEDV ABA-OuT¢6'I._YEA RS,
. SRI H.VH;DjjO.NI«.__
«AGED MAJ"QR,»~RESIDENT OF DONI,
TALuI<&}DISI_TRI--CT, GADAG
' " (OWNER OF 407 E\|O.KA~26/2372)
F"
..RESPONDENTS
_ [By Srijagadish Patii, Adv. for R1]
V' Is FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
=.AG'AINST--.";TH_E JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10-O6~O3
PASSED.I_Nj'..«MvC NO.267/O2 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER,
MACT---2_AND PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DN) & JMFC AND
MEMBER; MACT~II, BAGALKOT, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
W"
E
IN MFA NO.6453/2003
BETWEEN:
1.
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LT
GADAG BRANCH OFFICE
THROUGH ITS REGIOI\:AL:_OFF.ICEf;. I " I
# 25, SHANKARANARAYANA
M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE ---- 1a_
REP BY ITS DEPUTY IfiA.N'AGER I
SMT K.S.\/AIJ__AYANTHI._ '
. ' ' _ _ ..APPELLANT
{By Sri B;C.SAeeth:grEImaI_RaO,--.,Adm}
. SR1, 5~ASA.VAF§AJ :§§ALLA'F5?'OAE-GA NEAL,
AGED Ié£B'QUT"381YEARS_.FP.V '
I
AGED A'Eg.OU'I'«.3i--._YEA'R--S,..
BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF
:BAGAE'_K'QT"
'SR1 H.H.DDNI I
AGED MA;JOR,RESIDENT OF DONI,
TALUs<_V& DIS'.'RICT, GADAG
. ' TH--If'S;- MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAIN_ST_ THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED I0-06-03'
PASSED IN M'./C NO.268/0.2 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER,
MACT-.2"AND PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DN) & IMFC AND
"MEMBER, MACT-I1', BAGALKOT, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
_ PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
(__OWNER'C--F*407 NO.KA-26/2372)
[By Sri.JagadiSh Patii, Adv. for R2]
T THESE MFAS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED, THIS
DAY JAWAD RA!-IIM., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
(%:''II/'
A.
E.RI'LDIN'G.IE%" --._ U, " U
..RESPONDENTS
JUDGMENT
These three MFAS are filed under Sectioi1jV:1'?43-{:1}. of Motor Vehicles Act against the common No.26? and 268/2002 dated v:..0V.2'.'2OO"'3 pA0l5slt.g¢manor MACT~II, Bagafkot.
2. MFA No.6452/.2003:l-a-nd"_'MFA_No.64;'3-3/2503 are by the Insurance Compa'n'yi.whi'leV§'iV§i;=A':"i§lV:oAA..f3885/2003 is by the claimants in 7 he_a_rd the learned counsel Sri.Seetha'rama.V_.é'A:-i:F§ao"-I:foir the appellant in MFA No.je45A2/2'oota'an'd 6453/2003 and Sri.Jagadish Patil for it V' gtheéiagfipeflangts iniimix No.S885/2003.
3.;~_TV;h'ei contextual facts needing reference are on gA1O.6...2vQt32 at 3.45 PM one Nagappa Gangal was proceeding motorcycle bearing £\lo.KA.NO.29 J 4247 on Budihal~ V. .._.f<udaragi road. When he reached the garden land of Poojari, the goods vehicle Tata 407 bearing No.KA 26/2372 driven rashly and negligently was passing the said road in the opposite direction. It is aileged that due to negligent 3/ 5 driving of the goods vehicle, there was collision between it and the motorcycle. Due to the consequent..f"i«m'pAact Nagappa Gangal as also his daughter Shrut_hi* 4_ Sridhar suffered injuries and werewarimit.ted'vito.--'IKl..E' S_joci'e.tvu ' ; Hospital, Belgaum, where all the injuries. Report in this 'i;eg'a.rd was i'«eglis:te'i-..¢"ci""'~~atj Biligi Police Station against the 'ofgethe "goods:§vehicle in Cr.No.126/2002. filed. MVC No.320/Zooggwas filed"5y§::::aasa:v*'a'raj léillcillllappa Gangal and his wife .;cl_ainjiVn*g' compelnlsation regarding the deathV_.of.flie:§"r MVC No.32:/2002 was filed Zvby of Nagappa Gangal) claiming compensatidon death of their daughter Shruthi. _ In«.%.':pot'i1 the "pwe,tit__i_ons, the claimants placed actionable G ;w»rorig:_on'«.th'e___driver of the offending goods vehicle. The H '-o'w--n'er.VofI"t.he::.V'llata Goods Vehicle and its insurer (appellant heléreinjg were arrayed as respondents 1 and 2. The Aii'es.pondent No.1 the owner of the Goods Vehicle did not Atparticlpate in the proceedings while the Insurance it "Company (appellant herein) resisted the claim. It denied that there was negligence in the driving of the Goods Vehicle. It alleged that Nagappa Gangal was rash and 6 negligent and it is due to his negligence the accident occurred. It was also averred that he had no vajl'id:.fdri\;.iung license and thus the liability of the Insurance.:Coimip:a"iiy*." was eliminated.
4. Smt.Shantavva MVCV No.26?/2002 claiming cornpen's:at'i'o..n. regaraingii death of Nagappa Gangal Gangal and Smt.Paravva fi_led:r claiming compensat'i'on..__V'teg_ard:i:ngi' tdea_tih"VVVof the minor girl sumatht llV'i+iy.c 268/2002, the owner- insured wastarr§.g:¢d.'v4'a*s:_::'resp"ondent No.1 and the insurer (appellant...'Vhe.rein)RVwasjlarlrayed as respondent No.2. the oi_aiii1.evr{i'nsvured""ofoVt_h.eioffending vehicle failed to contest the ' 'impi*oce..gvd':.n:g.s""while the insurer resisted the claims denying . '--its'-!ii'abVilit'yj;: Vf=The owner and insurer are represented by the Ad;/o.caAte.Vl'whi|e Insurance Company is represented by 2 iSn'i.tA.S.V"G.Shobha. The statement of objections were filed by the Insurance Company denying its liability. It "denied ail contentions raised by the ciaimants and tried to place actionable wrong on the rider oi' the motorcycle. It also urged that motorcyclist Nagappa Gangal had no i"
W x,-
7 driving license. The Tribunal framed in all six issues in both the cases, placing onus of proof on issue 2 on the claimants while onus of proof on issL:--ge'--Nos'.'3:"'and-o4'v. are placed on the respondent--in.sure_rAofhtlheg"vehilcle'_§_}_ discharge of the burden cast claimant No.1 in MVC NoV.»2_§"7/.20OA2 exa_mi»-niediheirself as PW.ii and the claimants in £\{ii'.i-,'--C:l'i}l--o;'2§8/éOO2._a[so tendered evidence. The claimants on the evidence of one ll/iavllikaitjun:|Kalaba_sap;ja..V'-eiramined as PW.3. Accepting the Tribunal held thatthe Vx'iaLS::V'tl;i€':::vlTE'S:tJl'C of negligence in the drivirig of held him responsible for the accident)»_l_Vii the contention of the Insurance tha't«,.._t_h€ motorcycle rider was rash and ' ;Vn'*eglig__ent:.'«ETh_e said finding has not been questioned by the "insured -tamer of the vehicle. It is only the Insurance Collrnplanvqwhich has raised the plea. At this juncture, a question would arise as to é"l.V_"wh:ether the Insurance Company/appellant had obtained
--;permission to contest the proceedings on all grounds. We have taken note of the fact that the insured--owner was not «W 9 appellant has not done. No evidence has been Ieactby the appellant except cross~examining the witnesse':i.""'.5H-ehcel leaving apart the question of maintaina'b'ilityk"oft appeals, we have heard it on merits.-._
7. As could be seen f'ro,:rjri"~.t%he eviden.ce'-.on'~«,r'é'cord, the ' Tribunal has held that the ',d~riv.e:r. oficthee offe.ndvi'ng vehicle was rash and negligerit.'whi.c.hiivfieenedlivndi.'is. based on clear testimony of who according to the theywaccident. His evidence finds filed which includes copy of by the Insurer, there was negligenVce,_Veinl. ' motorcycle, the best witness wV_o'£:lld:._lhave be'en....t.h.e driver of the offending vehicle, for » fienV~e.)({)!a'i!T]'|"rig_the reasons, he has not been examined and no evidence against the evidence of Na4ga.p"pa..Vx Despite cross--examination, the Insurance ncomypaeny has not been able to salvage anything in its to hold that the accident was the result of the V "negligence of the rider in the driving of the motorcycle. av 11 the third parties, so far as the appellant Insisrance Company is concerned. Hence, negligence if any"-.i.n the driving of the motorcycle rider would not axb,s_ol:y'e~'4t:'o.fi"its liability, since it is held on facts that the dri«i-.{:erijo~f:
insured by it was responsible [for 'the _'In' the result, we do not find any groundA1'a__g'a'in.st the-v_ifi'ri»di'n§j».Aof~.tVh'e.,L Tribunal justifying, therefore','--vi.tVhe,y are'rejeicctedfi l
9. As seen from .AAfifri"b_unal has allowed MVC l\lo.267:.[21fl:£)'2. aviiardilnig' tolatvhje. and mother of the deceased 'Rs.2,85,000/--, against their:7clal--i'n In MVC No.268/.2002, the Tribunalhhas, a sum of Rs.1,5O,O0O/W as co..nhp'en*sation"--reg_a_rding the death of 7 years old child » ;Surna.tLhi,, award is not questioned.
z award in MVC No.26?/200.2 is questioned by AAtl'1e..,gclaimants as too low. We are therefore constrained to ucoliisider the grounds urged by the claimants.
11. It is seen from the evidence on record, l->W.1 the claimant No. E in MVC No.26?/2802 has deposed that her (39/' 12 husband was working as a lab boy in Nandi Sugar Factory, Gaiagali. He had the salary of Rs.6,000/~ per moth and all of them were depending on him. The Sa|ary..Cer_'t.i_:fi'eate of Nagappa is at Ex.P.5, which shows Rs.6,000/--. It is also their case»..»that he agriculture and was earning :"Rs.2_'i*~iiak'hs However, there is no docuth_ei':1:ary eyideVn_c1e,in'~.thirs..regard; ' The Tribunal has rejected th.eirvclai.m income5 from the agriculture but has was employed and was receiving a siaI'ar'rf:ais' The net salary as in is undisputably was working __The Tribunal did not accept the income shown the entire 12 months in a year. Tribunal'h'a5....Q.Dined that he was working in a Sugar ' ;FacVto--ry}~ilsisjob would have been seasonal and therefore ."séa'l~a'ry.vat'V."R.sgLaI5Vy101 is taken only for six months and it has quééantiitiedi 4' it as Rs.30,000/- per year. 1/3" has been Aigdiedyuctied towards his personal expenditure and %'gs.'A2o,ooo/-- is taken as contribution to the family per 'Hannum. He was aged 39 years but since the Post Mortem report shows as 45 years, the Tribunal has taken his age at 45 years and applying the multiplier indicated in /W?"
i/if 1.3 Schedufe II to Motor Vehicle Act, it is fixed as 13._..___ The loss of dependency is Caicufated at Rs.2,6O,OOO/-3"an%t%,t'ts2.at has been awarded as compensation. Besides,:the.:ftriib'L:n_a*i has awarded Rs.5,000/w Rs.5,000/-- towards transportation the _':'d.e.»arjV Rs.5,000/-- towards toss oti._V:t:onsort'it:,n1' _an~d towards loss of iovefand a,fffet':tvi.ors--~..,'to th'evv..inb'ther and Children and Rs.5,OOO'/5 estate. In at! Rs.2,85,OOO/W. 1_2_.,__W_e'Va'r'e:7::;atisfi.ed.::tr1at---the.Eomputation adopted by the Tribunai isV'ut«i:i:..t§L'f'i"i!,'<i'i1,.e.o'rreCt and cannot be sustained which reqiiires ,vreV¥deVt'ermi'_'nation. 'A on the evidence, it is seen Nagapba i"C5~aAn.g;%,a%"wastanernpfoyee in .33 Sugar Factory and Ex.P,5 .V groves. his intome as Rs.5,101/-- pm. This was as in the To determine what wouid be the loss of depienidency, it is not mereiy the salary, but future brospects in service, career progression and other service benefits to which he was entitled are neeessarify to be eonsidered. Those are reievant Components to determine I-1 what was the income of the deceased. There were divergent opinions as to what constitutes the income, but it has now been set at rest by the decision of4.thie.44'_"A_pex Court in the case of Sarala Dixit vs. reported in 1996 AC] 581 (SC).
14. The question as to whetheirit. is i:Ahei.Agr.oss"
or net saiary that has to be:"ta§<enV.rnto*»co'nsAi'de"rat'ion is now settled by the Apex CoA:i'r't=iri'theficaseéiof' NLQTIONAL INSURANCE coMPAiv'Y_'Lin3V:'i'; SRIVASTA VA AND :(SC)). The Apex Couri;'VV'r%eifernng in the case of ASHA & omens' held thVVLi'§'iijV* V. _"iS. We _n1a",z,.."i1o\}&>.evAér, notrce that a Divis:on Bench of this Court i'i"1",4S_f.?§3'i:T!f7Cf others VA United Indian Insurance _ !_rd.«._gi?irad another, II (2084) SH" 250 : I (2004) ACC it S'3f>.i(.4'SCr)V,"whereupon reiiance has been piaced by Mr. ' considering a case where, Ei§<e the present o_n~e3,_vs§e\}eraE perks were incéuded in SaEary. We may ..reproduced the saéary certificate hereto beEow:
'ms; Camry that sm: A.rv:,Ra;ka.r was working as AC5 ME in tnis organisation has been paid the foliowing pay and Aiiowances for the month of May, 1995:
f§'7' ft.» I5 0,?-'let. F?a'yiable':'1i?;s.i_6642;--OO (Rupees six thousand six hundred fort_\,r.tw'o'i.i;nly)"'.., V Irrthat case, held:
,,.«1.,aStly i'it'=-was submitted that the salary certificate ishowsathat the salary of the deceased was Rs. 8,632/~ _ v1t"w_asAV.submitted that the High Court was wrong in Vvtalfiivng 'the'V.salary to be Rs. 6,642/-. It was submitted thatfithe High Court was wrong in deducting the i .. allowances and amounts paid towards LIC, Society charges and HBA etc. We are unabie to accept this submissionaiso. The claimants are entitled to be compensated for the loss suffered by them. The loss suffered by them is the amount, which they wouid have been receiving at the time when the deceased was alive. There can be no doubt that the dependents would oniy be receiving the net amount iess 1/3?" for his personai expenses. The High Court was, therefore, right is so holding".
Earnings Amount Deductions Amoum Basic 3420.00 CPF(S) 4s3.(i0i;'7' FDA 350.00 (HS 337::
VDA 1040.00 LEC/GIS '::()9..10:":.i:' is CCA 100.00 HHRA it .
HRA 1047.00 Msifxfji '4 'W_6000=.
Washing 75.00 "'=AS'('>ii'E.f:§)' _'.-.15',7.6.(i0 Aii V _ . --
Conv. 225.00 Unicin. 3.07?
Cant.Sub 265.00 :":v"--_'l""r1sA A' *~..34.0;0(i C.E.A _ 10.00 "l*o;za_I 8632.0.0._.:'_'--. V+=.".:"1:'7"(¥jtal 1989.85 16 This Court is Asha (Supra) did not address itself the questions raised before us. It does n.ot_i appeal that any precedent was noticed term 'just compensation' was considereciin iight of the changing societai conditicm»V-a's~..a'iso «- the perks which are paid to:v'thei'ern._pioyee--vvriicVh_V"i may or may not attract incorne tax or any other " tax.
16. In Rathi Manon V. ;un.r};"n.o'r-»..zni1ia,"'H-(2051) SLT 524 _. ; (20G1)V:y';3\CCi_4."E;3 "(.2yot3"1~)i_3 scc 714, this Court, upon "fdictionary meaninygyof V' "
appeaAr'si.i'V_..useFui. -_v"~The' _'Centrai Government is iemipowered~ijy..the_Vsai,,d" provisions to make rules by notification' carry 'out the purposes of this . _v Chapterffii ritfis evident that one of the purposes of vthisVchapter..i.$___gthat the injured victims in railway aaccidents and untoward incidents must get ivcompensvatfion. Though the word "compensation" is not.'fdefiij.ed in the Act or in the Ruies it is the giving of an eqfuivaient or substitute of equivaient vaiue. In .. Biack's Law Dictionary, "compensation" is shown as "equivaient in money for a loss sustained; or giving back an equivaient in either money which is but the measure of value, or in actuai value otherwise conferred; or recompense in vaiue for some ioss, injury or service especiaiiy when it is given by statute".
r'?"3'/ 17 It means when you pay the compensation in terms of money it must represent, on the date of ordering such payment, the equivalent value. C C'
25. In this context we may look at Section_.1ié.d'(i--).:',:'~-- '7' C also. It says that the right of any persono_te...clai1nw _ compensation before the Claims >T'ri»bunal--'_'as indi'cateo~._f_ in Section 124 or 124-A shallanot affer:t the tight any such person to recover compensation,_'i_pa'yable ' under any other law for'th"e"*~t,ime being in f'cWe';w._"E»ut there is an interdict that nohpeorson shall!'-beVAe'n:titled to claim compensativontfor mo'reth'anVV"o.n.ce inerespecvt of the same accident."<--.i:*Eiis inea%.n'sVth'a-father party has two alternatives, one is to'lavail..'him'se=f..o'tcivil remedy to claim compensatilon'izlaseodxgn.'comrnon law or any other_ostiatu«,iiolry provisjion, and. vthe"ot'her is to apply .ivi'3'e'forefit?-We ciaai-ins "Trlb'unal «u'n'de'rV4Section 124 or 124-A 1'-of the VAct..;~.._oA'si ohe-._cavn_no-t-avail himself of both the remedies'he.'i2as.to"~c,h'oose one between the two. The provisions in ._ChAa_p'ter.7XIII of the Act are intended to ' " provide 'espevedier remedy to the victims of accidents are untoward"incidents. If he were to choose the _ivatter,_th--at does not mean that he should be prepared C' »to'~.ge'L ai'.lesser amount. He is giver the assurance by the Legislature that the Central Government is saddled wAith'vt"he task of prescribing fair and just compensation H intthe Rules from time-to~time. The provisions are not intended to give a gain to the Railway Administration but they are meant to afford just and reasonable Compensation to the victims as a speedier measure. If a person files a suit the amount of compensation will depend upon what the Court considers just and reasonable on the date of determination. Hence when he goes before the Claims ?ribunal claiming 18 Compensation the determination of the amount shouid_._ be as on the date of such determination." V d In the same judgment, the Apex Court has'd'et_er:ndii.n:ed_V what constitutes 'income' and has held th-usi:v~.i'j:j~.. '17. The amounts, therefore,'b"*.~hitiht i/§rterei'~e_:Aqduired "
to be paid to the deceased of hisierripioyei.-'Vb'y',y.~a_yV of perks, should be inciudg§j"'--for comi:i_ita'tiori.= offlhis monthly incomeas that w.ouAid__h'av_Ve been 'addgedto his monthly inC'Agi'I'i':-' byfiwaiyvfii1".(;0.fi'fiibUtiOn to the famiiy as contra dddistingiiished 'ones which were forvhis benE'fijL'L> .'}i'i'eVrriiay,_ iioweyxer} hasten to add ;th'a'tg:.Vgfrom ithex: 'am.ou"nt..of:«income, the sta'tu't'o.ryii.an5._ount tax 'paxfabie thereupon must be .Q1ed.uC}tEd."' ' ' decision, in the case of SARLA vE'm_i»m_.itar. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION &i'it5~rigi_ER-is (2o09ttrAcJ 1293), the Apex Court has put an end' controversies and anomaiies by a firm .di,c;;'tum,.."p--rescribing the mode and methodoiogy in computdation of income as aiso factors to be taken into ttonsideration in determining ioss of dependency and ifiuantum of compensation. For ciarity, it is enough if we reproduce the observation of the Apex Court at paragraph 9 of the Judgment:
"Step 1 (Ascertaining the muItiph'cand); \/ 19 The income of the deceased per annum should be determined. Out of the said income a deductioriw. should be made in regard to the amount which, deceased would have spent on himself by personal and living expenses. The balance, =.vvhich,is"- consi'dered to be the contribution to the-"dependent family, constitutes the multipiicdnd. ' ._ "
Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier) Having regard to the age o_f'vtn:e__o'aceased" period of active career, ._app._?opriat'e..._mul't;"plier should be selected. This doesnot' -the number of years he would.hev_e'r.lived yore but for the accident, ' '.*zlaving iregardl'to'~se'veial _ ipjponderabies in life and"'vecon_omic farjtors, 7'abie_of multipliers with itreference._--to._the, ageinas been identified by this court.
"The. multiplier'Z::hould'-be,--~chosen from the said Table withrei'erence totne age of the deceased. ' ' §tep__3(A etuav!..-zxslculation):
at aénizuaji. contribution to the family (multiplicand) when-multiplied by such multiplier gives the 'loss of dependency' to the family.
Thereafter, a conventional amount in the range of Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 10,000 may be added as loss to estate. Where the deceased is survived by his widow, another conventional amount in the range of Rs.5,000 to Rs.10,000 should be added under the head of loss of consortium. But no amount is to be awarded under the head of pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of the deceased.
21 time of death. A departure therefrom shouid be made only in rare and exceptional cases invoiving special circumstances.
16. As regards the second questiong....a_s_A»'to:fwvhat shouid be the deduction towards personaiggeiiperzsesiléofitheg7» deceased, the Apex Court held thusf' "Question (ii) -- Deduc'tV_io'n_V for ipersonalflaridliixzingi expenses:
12.
13. V V _ _ z
14. Though in siomecasesAth»e_Vdedu«ction to be made towards_"pe.fsonaI °and?ii'ving "expen"ses*' is caiculated on V.=fhH§" ba.s}:s otifiunits".;,n.dicate'd"inV' Trilok Chandrae case, X1996' ACJ:t8:3..3,4't(SC).,.:.t'he' generai practice is to apply stagndardizedid.educ'ti.o.n's;'" Having considered severai subsequent d-eciAs~Eo'n's..>'of this court, we are of the view "that wheredthe deceased was married, the deduction tjowards persoflnaiiand iiving expenses of the deceased ..5uhou'id_i"'i3e_ one~third (1/3*") where the number of it "depebnde'nt"famiEy members is 2 to 3; one --fourth (1/4"') _ whgererthe number of dependent family members is 4 to SW; and one-fifth (1/5*") where the number of the a dependent famiiy members exceed six."
17. As regards the third question as to what factors
-~~'are relevant for selecting the multipiier, it held thus:
"Question (iii) - Selection of muitiplier:
16..., I7...,18...,19...,20,...
22
21. We, therefore, hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column 4 of the Table Vatlove (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, ~ V. Chandra and Charlie), which starts with ai*{~.ooeravt:ive multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15..to_:"2.Qa.lrfd .21 to 25 years), reduced by one~'u"nit*for eyyery fiveyearsr, , that is 94-17 for 26 to 30 years, M~3'1'€..for 31 to :35 fl/1-15 for 36 to 40 year>S,_M--14A'for"41 to 4566-i.'/éars, ahdlti M--13 for 46 to S0 years,_,_th'e_n reduced'hyVt.vvo"~.un'its for every five years, that is, a¥ii=1_1 for Slto, yeefrs, 94-?) for S6 to 60 yevars-..,_ ¥Vl~7/for ;toj"6.S& yea rsHa'nd"M~5 for 66 to 70 Years.' 7 *
18. Tune: v..Ape§cVV"note of various methodoiorgilégst Tribunal; in the Countryv-,,. "'CO""'§vFit§Ol'lSiSt€3FtCy and different standa_rd's, guidelines on the basis of which 'incornewil " be determined. Even after dis-tierrnfining theincome, the traditional deduction of 1/3"' ' dis"-.h,e«ld'~not:"proper. The deduction of amount towards personal*.V~Ve;<o'enses is also to be based on the number of depmnldrents.
19. On the basis of the decision of the Apex Court xreferred to above we are satisfied, even if we take the income of the deceased at Rs.5,101/- as on the date of the accident, since his age is taken as 45 years, 30% if it to be added. It gives us the figure Rs.6,631.3O which is rounded we / 23 off to Rs.6,600/-- x 12 + 79,200 minus 26,400 2 Rs._52,800 shall be the muitiplicand. The muitipiier to be 13 which gives the loss of dependency at 6,86,000/~ to which we have towadde t:§e'0"e"rees;$htfe_nc:er'r conventional heads i.e Rs.10,000/{A0i;oss*--o:f Rs.10,000/-- loss to est'a.t:Ve"~»..V_eand"' Rs;5V,0000}!;4"'*"'towards' transportation of dead Rse,'5,00"O/~._.totivards and funeral expenses, in ali the claimants woeuidbe Thus, the compensa.ti'o'n.._oAi?:F{.§.2%.S.F$_}0OVC';/j by the Tribunal is appeal med by the claimants find no merit in the appeais pr.e:iferred byindtiteVV§_n_si:Jrance Company. MFA No.64S2/2003 »A is»disrniissed-a_nd MFA No.S88S/2003 filed by the claimants =is'.'ail'EoV\'2v'e'd';.._ are confirming the judgment and award in M\}ceeN'eeV.2s}s/2002 and dismiss MFA No.6453/2003. sa/-
tones SW3 FEEQE rm/*