Karnataka High Court
Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd vs Smt. Nanjamma on 8 December, 2020
Bench: Alok Aradhe, H T Narendra Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
M.F.A. NO.2247 OF 2015
C/W
M.F.A. NO.8223/2015, M.F.A. NO.7951/2017 &
M.F.A. NO.1797/2018 (MV)
M.F.A.NO.2247/2015
BETWEEN:
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD.
REGIONAL OFFICE NO.28
5TH FLOOR, EAST WING
CENTENARY BUILDING
M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.
REP. BY ITS MANAGER.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. H.N.KESHAVA PRASHANTH, ADV.,)
AND:
1. SMT. NANJAMMA
W/O S.C.VENKATARAMAIAH
@ DODDAVENKATRAMAIAH
@ DODDAVEBJATARANAPPA
NOW AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
2. SRI. S.C. VENKATARMAIAH
@ DODDAVENKATRAMAIAH
@ DODDAVEBJATARANAPPA
NOW AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.
2
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
SEESANDRA VILLAGE
KOLAR TALUK & DISTRICT - 586 210.
3. Y.S. VENKATAREDDY, MAJOR
R/AT NO.544/5, 13TH CROSS
VYALIKAVAL, MALLESHWARAM
BENGALURU - 560 003.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N. GOPAL KRISHNA, ADV. FOR R1 AND R2
SRI. D. GOVARDHAN, ADV. FOR R3)
---
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.01.2015 PASSED
IN MVC NO.6698/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL
SMALL CAUSE JUDGE & MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS.12,24,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 8% P.A.
FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION.
M.F.A.NO.8223/2015
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. NANJAMMA
W/O S.C.VENKATARAMAIAH
@ DODDAVENKATRAMAIAH
@ DODDAVENKATARAMAPPA
NOW AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
2. SRI. S.C. VENKATARAMAIAH
@ DODDAVENKATRAMAIAH
@ DODDAVENKATARAMAPPA
S/O LATE CHIKKANACHAPPA
NOW AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
SEESANDRA VILLAGE
KOLAR TALUK & DISTRICT.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. N.GOPAL KRISHNA, ADV,)
AND:
1. SRI. Y.S. VENKATAREDDY
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
3
MAJOR IN AGE
RESIDING AT FLAT NO.544/5, 13TH CROSS
VYALIKAVAL, MALLESHWARAM
BENGALURU - 560 003.
2. THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
REGIONAL OFFICE NO.28,
5TH FLOOR, EAST WING
CENTENARY BUILDING
M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001
REP BY ITS MANAGER.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.D.GOVARDHAN ADV. FOR R1
SRI. H.N.KESHAVA PRASANTH, ADV. FOR R2)
---
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.01.2015 PASSED
IN MVC NO.6698/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL
SMALL CAUSE JUDGE & MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
M.F.A. NO.7951 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD
NO.5/111 AND 6/112
1ST FLOOR, UNNATHI ARCADE
1ST BLOCK, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD
RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE.
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER
M/S. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.28
5TH FLOOR, EAST WING
CENTENARY BUILDING, M.G. ROAD
BENGALURU-560001
REP. BY ITS MANAGER.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. H.N. KESHAVA PRASHANTH, ADV.,)
4
AND:
1. S.N. PRASHANTH (SINCE DEAD BY LRs)
1(a) P. NANJUNDAPPA
NOW AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
S/O LATE PAPEGOWDA.
1(b). SMT. MANGAMMA
W/O P. NANJUNDAPPA
NOW AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
1(c) KUM. S.N. MANASA
NOW AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
D/O P. NANJUNDAPPA.
ALL ARE R/AT. SEESANDRA VILLAGE
HUTHUR HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK.
2. Y.S. VENKATAREDDY
MAJOR, R/AT. NO.454/5, 6TH MAIN
13TH CROSS, VAYALIKAVAL
MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560003.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SUGUNA R. REDDY, ADV., FOR R1(a-c)
SRI. D. GOVARDHAN, ADV., FOR R2)
---
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.07.2017 PASSED
IN MVC NO.552/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE & CJM, MACT, KOLAR, AWARDING COMPENSATION
OF RS.27,73,838/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE
OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
M.F.A. NO.1797 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. P. NANJUNDAPPA
NOW AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
S/O LATE PAPEGOWDA.
2. SMT. MANGAMMA
W/O P. NANJUNDAPPA
5
NOW AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.
3. KUM. S.N. MANASA
NOW AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
D/O P. NANJUNDAPPA.
ALL ARE R/AT. SEESANDRA VILLAGE
HUTHUR HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. SUGUNA R. REDDY, ADV.,)
AND:
1. SRI. Y.S. VENKATA REDDY
MAJOR, R/AT. NO.454/5, 6TH MAIN
13TH CROSS, VAYALIKAVAL
MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560003
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER
M/S. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
NO.5/111 AND 6/112
1ST FLOOR, UNNATHI ARCADE
1ST BLOCK, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD
RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. D. GOVARDHAN, ADV., FOR R1
SRI. H.N. KESHAVA PRASHANTH, ADV., FOR R2)
---
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.07.2017 PASSED
IN MVC NO.552/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MACT, KOLAR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITON FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THESE M.F.As. COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
6
COMMON JUDGMENT
M.F.A.No.8223/2015 and M.F.A.No.2247/2015 have been filed by the claimants as well as insurance company respectively against the judgment dated 24.01.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal' for short). M.F.A.No.1797/2018 and M.F.A.No.7951/2018 have been filed by the claimants as well as insurance company respectively against the judgment dated 20.07.2017. These appeals under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) arise out of the same accident, though different judgments, they were heard analogously and are being decided by this common judgment.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 11.09.2013, the deceased SV Santosh Kumar along with a pillion rider namely Prashanth were proceeding on motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-07-S-3075. When they reached near 7 Kendatti, the rider of the motorcycle dashed against a lorry bearing registration No. KA-04-C-3461, which was parked in the middle of the road by its driver in a negligent manner without any indications or signals. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the rider as well as pillion rider of the bike namely SV Santosh Kumar and Prashanth respectively sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same.
3. The legal representatives of the deceased S.V. Santosh Kumar, thereupon, filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act namely M.V.C.No.6698/2013, claiming compensation on the ground that the deceased S.V. Santosh Kumar was aged about 24 years at the time of accident and was employed as a fitter at M/s Honda Motorcycles and Scooters Pvt. Ltd., and was earning a sum of Rs.8,318/- per month. It was further pleaded that accident took place solely on account of negligence of the driver of the lorry. The claimants 8 claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/- along with interest.
4. The legal representatives of the deceased Prashanth, thereupon, filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act namely M.V.C.No.52/2013,claiming compensation on the ground that the deceased Prashanth was aged about 26 years at the time of accident and was employed as a semi skilled operator at M/s Honda Motorcycles and Scooters Pvt. Ltd., and was earning a sum of Rs.8,976/- per month. It was further pleaded that accident took place solely on account of negligence of the driver of the lorry. The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.40,00,000/- along with interest.
5. The insurance company filed written statements, in which the mode and manner of the accident was denied. It was averred that the aforesaid accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of 9 motorcycle by its rider viz., S.V. Santosh Kumar. It was also pleaded that the rider of the motorcycle viz., S.V. Santosh Kumar did not hold a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. The age, avocation and income of the deceased persons were also denied and it was pleaded that the claims of the claimants are exorbitant and excessive.
6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. In M.V.C.No.6698/2013, the claimant No.2 examined himself as PW-1, Arun S.H. (PW2) and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P16. In M.V.C.No.552/2013, the claimants examined Dr.Sunil Karanth (PW1), Paparajamurthy Dantam (PW2), P. Nanjundaiah (PW3) and exhibited documents viz., Ex.P1 to Ex.P64. The insurance company in MVC 6698/2013 examined B Guruprasad as RW-1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R2, whereas, in MVC 552/2013 the insurance company examined 10 Surendra(RW1) and Pushpalatha(RW2) and exhibited documents viz., Ex.R1 and Ex.R2.
7. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment in M.V.C.No.6698/2013, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of negligence of the driver of the lorry as well as the deceased to the extent of 75% and 25% respectively. It was further held, that as a result of aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.12,24,000/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum. Being aggrieved, M.F.A.No.8223/2015 has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation whereas M.F.A.No.2247/2015 has been filed by the insurance company.
8. In M.V.C.No.552/2013, inter alia, the Tribunal has held that the accident took place on account of 11 negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry due to which pillion rider namely Prashanth died. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.27,73,828/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Being aggrieved, M.F.A.No.1797/2018 has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation whereas M.F.A.No.7951/2017 has been filed by the insurance company.
9. Learned counsel or the insurance company in M.F.A.No.7951/2017 submitted that on the date of the accident, the vehicle did not have the valid permit and therefore, the tribunal ought to have invoked the principle of 'pay and recover'. It is also submitted that there is no nexus between the injuries sustained by the deceased viz., Prashanth and the death which eventually took place on 09.01.2016. It is also pointed out that the Doctor who was examined on behalf of the claimants viz., Dr.Sunil Karanth PW1 has not stated in his 12 evidence that the deceased died on account of injuries sustained by him in the accident and since, there is no nexus between the injuries and death, the legal representatives of deceased Prashanth cannot prosecute the petition under Section 166 of the Act. Alternatively, it is submitted that in case, it is held that there is nexus between the injuries sustained by deceased Prashanth and his death, the claimants can prosecute the petition only in respect of loss of estate i.e., to the extent of 25% of the total income of the deceased. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on full bench decision of this court in UTTAM KUMAR VS. MADHAV AND ANOTHER, ILR 2002 KAR 1864 and A.MANAVALAGAN VS. A.KRISHNAMURTHY AND ORS. 2005 ACJ 99. It is also urged that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the rider of the bike as the rider of the bike dashed hind portion of the lorry. It is fairly stated that even though the charge sheet has been filed against the driver of the lorry, yet 13 the tribunal ought to have held the instant case to be a case of contributory negligence. In support of aforesaid submission, reference has been made to the judgment of this court in M.F.A.No.9632/2015 and connected matters dated 20.10.2020. Learned counsel for the insurance company insofar as quantum of compensation is concerned, submitted that deceased was an employee of a private company and has produced pay slip for the month of August 2013 Ex.P14, from which it is evident that his monthly income was Rs.7,491/- and the tribunal grossly erred in awarding 50% on account of future prospects instead of 40%.
10. Learned counsel for the insurance company in M.F.A.No.2247/2015 has adopted the submissions made by him in M.F.A.No.7951/2017 with regard to contributory negligence and has submitted that the deceased viz., S.V.Santhosh Kumar ought to have been held negligent to the extent of 25% in causing of the accident. It is also urged that deceased was aged about 14 24 years and was working as an operator, however, 50% of the amount has been added on account of future prospects to his monthly income, which is contrary to law laid down by constitution bench of Supreme Court in 'NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD V. PRANAY SETHI', AIR 2017 SC 5157, However, it is fairly admitted that no evidence has been led by the insurance company on the issue that the insured vehicle at the time of accident as being plied without valid permit. It is urged that the matter be remitted to the tribunal to enable the insurance company to lead evidence in this regard.
11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants in M.F.A.No.1797/2018 submitted that there is a nexus between the injuries sustained by the deceased Prashanth as well as his death. The accident took place on 11.09.2013, whereas, the permit had expired on 12.08.2013 i.e., within a period of 30 days during which the owner of the vehicle could have got the permit 15 renewed. It is also submitted that at the first instance, the deceased was admitted in Manipal Hospital for 13 days and thereafter, in a hospital in Kolar for 7 months and again for a period of 14 days and two and half days. It is also pointed out that thereafter the deceased was admitted to the hospital on account of the head injuries sustained by him in the accident on 23.11.2015 and the deceased underwent surgery on 05.12.2015 and while under treatment in the hospital expired on 09.01.2016. The Dr.Sunil Karanth PW1 has been examined on 27.11.2015 while the deceased was admitted in the hospital and from his evidence, it is clear that the deceased died on account of injuries sustained by him in the accident. The father of the deceased P.Nanjundappa viz., PW3 was examined after the death of his son on 03.01.2016 who has stated in categorical terms that deceased died on account of injuries sustained by him in the accident. It is also pointed out that the aforesaid witness has not been subjected to cross-examination on 16 the issue of nexus between the injuries as well as the death. It is also pointed out that after the death of the deceased, amended written statement was filed in which it was stated that the deceased died on account of injuries sustained by him in the accident. However, the insurance company did not amend its written statement. It is further submitted that from the perusal of Ex.P14 i.e., the salary certificate, it is evident that the deceased was drawing monthly salary of Rs.8,976/- and no amount on account of loss of estate has been awarded by the tribunal. It is also submitted that even though the deceased remained alive for two and half years after the accident and was hospitalized on several occasions, neither any amount of compensation has been awarded on account of pain and suffering nor on account of attendant, food and nourishment charges as well as transportation charges.
12. Learned counsel for the claimants in M.F.A.No.8223/2015 submitted that the salary of the 17 deceased has been Rs.8,000/- per month, which is on the lower side and the deceased at the time of accident was aged about 24 years and therefore 40% of the amount ought to have been added on account of future prospects and the amount awarded under the other heads is also on the lower side and therefore, the amount of compensation requires to be enhanced suitably.
13. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. In 'MANGALA RAM VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.', (2018) 5 SCC 656 has held that the proceeding under the Act has to be decided on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and claimant is not required to prove the accident beyond reasonable doubt. It is equally well settled legal proposition that burden of proving negligence lies on the person who alleges it. However, the finding with regard to contributory negligence has to be recorded on the basis 18 of proper consideration of the pleadings and legal evidence adduced by both the parties and the same cannot be based merely on police records. [See: 'MINUROUT VS. SATYA PRADYUMNA MOHAPATRA', (2013) 10 SCC 695 AND 'SARALA DEVI VS. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD.,', (2014) 15 SCC 450]. It has further been held that mere position of the vehicles after the accident as shown in scene mahazar cannot be a substantial proof as to rash and negligent driving on the part of one or the other. When two vehicles coming from opposite directions collide, the position of the vehicles and its direction etc. depends on the number of factors like speed of vehicles, intensity of collision, reason for collision, place at which one vehicle hit the other, etc. From the scene of the accident, one may suggest or presume the manner, in which the accident caused, but in absence of any direct or corroborative evidence, no conclusion can be drawn as to whether there was 19 negligence on the part of the driver. In absence of such direct or corroborative evidence, the court cannot give any specific finding about negligence on the part of any individual. [SEE:'JIJU KURUVILA AND ORS. VS. KUNJUJAMMA MOHAN AND ORS.', (2013) 9 SCC 166].
14. In the backdrop of the well settled legal position, we may advert to the facts of the case. The insurance company even though has taken a plea of contributory negligence in the written statement, however, it is pertinent to note that driver of the lorry has not been examined who was a material witness to prove the manner, in which he had parked the offending lorry on the road. It is also pertinent to mention here that admittedly, the charge sheet was filed against the driver of the offending lorry. The accident has taken place at 5.00 a.m. in the morning. The insurance company has not examined the driver to prove the manner in which the lorry was parked on the road. The 20 tribunal merely on the basis of spot sketch has recoded a finding that the lorry was parked on extreme left side of the road without taking necessary precautions and has held the rider of the bike negligent to the extent of 25% in M.V.C.No.6698/2013. However, in M.V.C.No.5524/2013, it has been held by the tribunal that the accident took place on account of negligence of the driver of the lorry in parking the vehicle in the middle of the road. Thus, in respect of same accident, contradictory findings have been recorded by the tribunal, which otherwise cannot be sustained in the eye of law as the decision taken by the courts in respect of the accident on same set of facts has to be consistent. Accordingly, the finding recoded by the tribunal in M.V.C.No.6698/2013 that deceased S.V.Santhosh Kumar was negligent to the extent of 25% in causing the accident is hereby set aside and it is held that the accident took place on account of negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry in parking the lorry in the 21 middle of the road without any indicators / signals. So far as the liability of the insurance company is concerned, the insurance company has not led any evidence to prove the fact that the vehicle was being plied in the absence of any valid permit, therefore, the insurance company has to be held liable to make payment of the compensation in the fact situation of the case, and taking in to account that the accident took place in the year 2013, and no cogent reason has been assigned by the insurance company for not adducing the evidence with regard to absence of valid permit, we do nto find any ground to remit the matter to the tribunal to afford an opportunity to the insurance company to adduce evidence in this regard.
15. Now we may advert to the quantum of compensation in M.F.A.No.1797/2018. The deceased in M.F.A.No.1797/2018 viz., Prashanth was a pillion rider and was aged about 27 years. The deceased was working as semi skilled operator in Honda Motor Cycle 22 India Pvt. Ltd. and was getting salary of Rs.8,976/- per month, which is evident from Ex.P13. The tribunal has therefore, rightly assessed the monthly salary of the deceased at Rs.8,976/-. In view of law laid down by constitution bench of the Supreme Court in 'NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD V. PRANAY SETHI', AIR 2017 SC 5157, 40% of the amount has to be added to the monthly income of the deceased. Thus, the monthly income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.12,566/-. Since, the number of dependants on the deceased was 3, therefore, 1/3rd of the amount has to deducted on account of personal expenses in view of law laid down in 'SARALA VERMA VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CRPORATION' 2009 (6) SCC 121. Thus, the monthly dependency comes to Rs.8,377/-. Taking into account the age of the deceased which was 27 years at the time of accident, the multiplier of '17' has to be adopted.
Thus, the loss of dependency comes to (Rs.8,377x12x17) i.e., Rs.17,08,976/-. In addition, as 23 held by the tribunal, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.12,25,500/- on account of medical expenses incurred by them.
16. In view of law laid down 'MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. NANU RAM & ORS.' (2018) 18 SCC 130, which has been subsequently clarified by the Supreme Court in 'UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. SATINDER KAUR AND ORS.' IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.2705/2020 DECIDED ON 30.06.2020 each of the claimant's are entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- on account of loss of consortium and loss love and affection. Thus, the claimants are held entitled to Rs.1,20,000/-. In addition, claimants are held entitled to Rs.30,000/- on account of loss of estate and funeral expenses.
17. The claimant has remained alive for nearly a period of two and half years and has undergone surgeries. However, no amount has been awarded on 24 account of food and nourishment charges as well as attendant charges. The claimant had remained in patient for a period of 285 days. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of food, nourishment and attendant charges. Thus, in all the claimants in M.V.C.No.1797/2018 are held entitled to a total compensation of Rs.30,34,126/-. Since the accident is of the year 2013, the prevailing rate of interest for the year 2013 in respect of fixed deposits for one year in nationalized banks being 7%, the aforesaid amounts of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 7% from the date of filing of the petition till the realization of the amount of compensation. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the tribunal for disbursement to the claimants.
18. The claimant in M.F.A.No.8223/2015 was aged about 24 years at the time of accident and the tribunal has held that the deceased was a semi skilled worker and was working in a private company and was 25 earning a net salary Rs.6,909/-. The deceased was a semi skilled worker and therefore, even if his salary is assessed on notional basis in view of the guidelines framed by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, since, the accident had taken place in the year 2013, the monthly income of the deceased has to be taken at Rs.8,000/- per month. In view of law laid down by constitution bench of the Supreme Court in 'NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD V. PRANAY SETHI', AIR 2017 SC 5157, 40% of the amount has to be added to the monthly income of the deceased. Thus, the monthly income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.11,200/-. Since, the number of dependants on the deceased was 3, therefore, 1/3rd of the amount has to deducted on account of personal expenses in view of law laid down in 'SARALA VERMA VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CRPORATION' 2009 (6) SCC 121. Thus, the monthly dependency comes to Rs.7,466/-. Taking into account the age of the deceased which was 24 years at the time 26 of accident, the multiplier of '18' has to be adopted.
Thus, the loss of dependency comes to (Rs.7,466x12x18) i.e., Rs.16,12,656/-.
19. In view of law laid down 'MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. NANU RAM & ORS.' (2018) 18 SCC 130, which has been subsequently clarified by the Supreme Court in 'UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. SATINDER KAUR AND ORS.' IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.2705/2020 DECIDED ON 30.06.2020 each of the claimant's are entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- on account of loss of consortium and loss love and affection. Thus, the claimants are held entitled to Rs.1,20,000/-. In addition, claimants are held entitled to Rs.30,000/- on account of loss of estate and funeral expenses. Thus, in all the claimants in M.V.C.No.1797/2018 are held entitled to a total compensation of Rs.17,62,656/-. Since the accident is of the year 2013, the prevailing rate of interest for the year 2013 in respect of fixed deposits for one year in 27 nationalized banks being 7%, the aforesaid amounts of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 7% from the date of filing of the petition till the realization of the amount of compensation. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the tribunal for disbursement to the claimants. To the aforesaid extent, the judgments passed by the Claims Tribunal are modified.
Accordingly, the appeals are disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE ss