Karnataka High Court
K. Nanjappa And Anr. vs V. Sekar And Anr. on 29 August, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2004ACJ1186, 2004(2)KARLJ329
JUDGMENT H.G. Ramesh, J.
1. This appeal is by the claimants seeking for enhancement of compensation for the death of their son namely, Balaji in a motor accident that occurred on 15-9-1996. The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 78,000/- along with 6% interest from the date of their claim till the date of payment.
2. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the car bearing No. TN-09 E 4575 has become final and is not disputed in this appeal.
3. The appellants/claimants had sought for conversion of their claim petition filed under Section 166 to Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by filing I.A. No. 1 and the same had been allowed by this Court on 3-7-2003 relying on the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Guruanna Vadi and Anr. v. The General Manager, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore and Anr., 2001(5) Kar. L.J. 322 (FB): ILR 2001 Kar. 2879 (FB) Accordingly, the only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the appellants are entitled to compensation as provided under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988?
4. I have heard learned Counsels appearing for the parties.
5. Sri Gopalakrishna appearing for the claimants submits that in view of the amendment granted by this Court, the appellants are entitled to the compensation awardable under Section 163-A read with the Second Schedule of the Act, which according to him would come to Rs. 1,54,500/- on the facts of this case.
6. Sri Vijaykumar appearing for respondent 2-United India Insurance Company submitted that Section 163-A would not be applicable to the facts of the case as the deceased was a non-earning member. This argument is to be stated only to be rejected. It is clearly stated in the Second Schedule of the Act at Item 6 that if the victim had no income, the income will have to be taken notionally at Rs. 15,000/- per annum and on that basis, the compensation will have to be worked out, Accordingly, the contention urged on behalf of the insurer is totally devoid of merit and is accordingly rejected.
7. This takes me to the aspect of assessment of compensation under Section 163-A of the Act read with the Second Schedule. The deceased was aged about 6 years and the multiplier applicable would be 15 as per the Second Schedule of the Act and since the deceased was a non-earning member, the income will have to be taken at Rs. 15,000/- per annum and if calculated on the basis of these facts, the total compensation would come to Rs. 2,25,000/- (15 x 15,000). As per the schedule, the ultimate compensation payable will have to be arrived at by deducting 1/3rd of it in consideration of the expenses which the victim would have incurred towards maintaining himself had he been alive. Accordingly, by deducting 1/3rd, the compensation amount would come to Rs. 1,50,000/-. To this, as per the schedule, Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 2,500/- towards loss of estate should be added. In all the compensation under Section 163-A of the Act on the facts of the case would come to Rs. 1,54,500/- which the claimants are entitled to.
8. In the result, I make the following order:
(i) The compensation of Rs. 78,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 1,54,500/-. The enhanced compensation of Rs. 76,500/- shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit. The enhanced amount is apportioned equally between the appellants.
(ii) Respondent 2-United India Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount with the Tribunal within 12 weeks from today.
(iii) The Tribunal shall pass appropriate orders with regard to disbursement/investment of the enhanced amount having regard to the observations made by the Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Mrs. Susamma Thomas.,
(iv) The judgment and award of the Tribunal in all other respects is not disturbed.
The appeal is allowed in the above terms. No costs.