Karnataka High Court
Rangamma W/O Nagappa @ Nagappa And Ors vs Shankrappa S/O Dodda Bheemanna And Anr on 22 July, 2021
Bench: S.G.Pandit, M.G.S.Kamal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.200161/2016 (MV)
C/w
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.201493/2019 (MV)
AND
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.201495/2019 (MV)
MFA No.200161/2016:
Between:
1. Rangamma
W/o Nagappa @ Nagappa Gowda
Age 41 years
Occ : Household
2. Nagappa @ Nagappa Gowda
S/o Urukundappa
Age : 43 years
Occ: Coolie works
3. Maremma
D/o Nagappa @ Nagappa Gowda
Age 17 years Minor
Occ : Nil
Since minor reptd. By her natural mother
Appellant No.1 Rangamma
All are R/o Murkhigudda Village
2
Tq: Manvi Now r/o Kalmala Village
Tq & Dist: Raichur - 584 101
... Appellants
(By Sri Babu H. Mettagudda, Advocate)
And:
1. Shankrappa
S/o Dodda Bheemanna
Age Major Occ: driver of KSRTC bus
No.KA-42/F-336,
R/o Kurdi village
Tq : Manvi
Dist.Raichur - 584 101
2. The Divisional Controller
NWKRTC, Bagalkot
Division Bagalkot - 582 102
(Owner cum self Insurer of KSRTC
Bus No.KA-42/F-336
... Respondents
(Sri Deepak V. Barad, Advocate for R2,
V/o. dated 04-04-2017 notice to R1 is dispensed with)
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, praying to allow this
appeal and modify the judgment and award dated
23.09.2015 passed in MVC No.143/2015 by the II Addl. Dist.
and Sessions Judge at Raichur and enhancing the
compensation from Rs.5,96,400/- with 6% interest to
Rs.37,75,000/- with 12% interest.
MFA No.201493/2019:
Between:
1. Amarayya S/o Hanumantappa
Age : 66 years
3
Occ: Agriculture
2. Smt. Shivamma W/o Amarayya
Age 54 years, Occ: Household,
Both are R/o Murkigudda Village
Tq: Manvi
Dist: Raichur
Now at Yermarus camp
Raichur - 584 101
... Appellants
(By Sri Bapu H. Metagudda, Advocate)
And:
1. Shankrappa
S/o Dodda Bheemanna
Age 26 years Occ: driver
R/o Kurdi village
Tq : Manvi
Dist.Raichur - 584 101
(Badge No.3300)
2. The Divisional Controller
NEWKRTC, Karnataka Sarige
(KSRTC), Bagalkot - 585 101
... Respondents
(Sri Deepak V. Barad, Advocate for R2,
Notice to R1 is dispensed with)
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, praying to allow this
appeal and modify the judgment and award dated
25.05.2016 passed in MVC No.379/2015 by the Prl. Dist.
and Sessions Judge (MACT), Raichur and enhancing the
compensation from Rs.4,61,250/- with 6% interest to
Rs.10,00,000/- with 12% interest.
4
MFA No.201495/2019:
Between:
1. Balvantha S/o Hanumantha
Age : 49 years
Occ: coolie
2. Smt. Surgamma W/o Balwantha
Age 34 years, Occ: Household,
Both are R/o Murkigudda Village
Tq: Manvi
Dist: Raichur
Now at Yermarus camp
Tq & Dist: Raichur - 584 101
... Appellants
(By Sri Bapu H. Metagudda, Advocate)
And:
1. Shankarappa
S/o Dodda Bheemanna
Age 26 years Occ: driver
R/o Kurdi village
Tq : Manvi
Dist.Raichur - 584 101
(Badge No.3300)
2. The Divisional Controller
Vayuveya Karnataka Sarige
(KSRTC), Bagalkot
Dist. Bagalkot - 585 101
... Respondents
(Sri Deepak V. Barad, Advocate for R2,
Notice to R1 is dispensed with)
5
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, praying to allow this
appeal and modify the judgment and award dated
25.05.2016 passed in MVC No.378/2015 by the Prl. Dist.
and Sessions Judge (MACT), Raichur and enhancing the
compensation from Rs.5,00,000/- with 6% interest to
Rs.10,00,000/- with 12% interest.
These appeals having been heard and reserved for
judgment on 14.07.2021, coming on for pronouncement of
Judgment this day, M.G.S.KAMAL, J., delivered the
following:-
COMMON JUDGMENT
MFA No.200161/2016 is filed by the claimants under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (herein after referred to as 'the Act') against the judgment and award dated 23.09.2015 passed in MVC.143/2015 by the 2nd Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Raichur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal').
MFA No.201493/2019 and MFA.No.201495/2019 are filed by the claimants under Section 173(1) of the Act against the common judgment and award dated 25.05.2016 passed in MVC.No.379/2015 and 6 MVC.No.378/2015 respectively by the Prl. Sessions Judge, Raichur.
2. The aforesaid three appeals are arising out of road traffic accident that took place on 30/12/2014 involving a motorcycle and KSRTC bus, resulting in death of the rider and 2 pillion riders of the motor cycle. Therefore, these appeals are taken up together for common hearing and final disposal.
3. The facts leading to filing of these appeals briefly stated are that at about 3.00 p.m., on 30/12/2014 while one Anjinayya (son of the claimants in MFA.201493/2019- MVC.379/2015) was riding the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-36/S-7007 with 2 pillion riders namely, Shivappa (son of claimant in MFA.No.200161/2016-MVC.143/2015) and Anjinamma (daughter of the claimants in MFA.No.201495/2019- MVC.378/2015) on Sirwar-Lingasugur road, a KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA-42/F-336 driven by its 7 driver/the respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner came from opposite direction and dashed against the motorcycle, due to the impact, the aforesaid rider and pillion riders fell down, sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to the same.
IN MFA.No.200161/2016 (MVC.No.143/2015):
4. Thereafter, parents of Shivappa filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Act in MVC.No.143/2015 pleading inter alia that the deceased Shivappa was aged about 19 years, hale and healthy, working as mason earning Rs.15,000/- per month and was contributing entire earnings to the maintenance of the family. That due to untimely death of the deceased Shivappa, claimants were put to emotional and financial distress. That the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending bus by its driver. As such, sought for compensation of Rs.37,75,000/- along 8 with interest from the date of filing of the petition till realization.
5. Upon service of notices, the respondent No.1 appeared through his counsel and filed written statement denying the petition averments and contended that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by its rider and that the rider of the motorcycle did not possess valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident. That the rider of the motorcycle was riding the same with 2 pillion riders which was against the law. Hence, sought for dismissal of the petition.
6. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company appeared through its counsel and filed separate statement of objection denying the petition averments and contended that accident had taken place solely on account of negligence on the part of the rider of the bike and that there was no negligence on the part of the 9 respondent No.1. As per RC book, sitting capacity on the said motorcycle was 1+1 and rider of the motor cycle was riding the same with 2 pillion riders and due to excess loading he lost control over the bike, resulting in the accident. That the rider of the motorcycle did not possess valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident and that the claim made by the claimants was exorbitant. As such, insurance company was not liable to pay compensation. Hence, sought for dismissal of the petition.
7. The Tribunal based on the pleadings, framed issues and recorded the evidence. The claimant No.1 Rangamma, the mother of the deceased examined herself as PW.1 and got exhibited 5 documents at Exs.P.1 to 5. On behalf of the respondents, one Muttappa S/o Mallappa examined himself as RW.1 and no documents were produced.
10
8. The Tribunal, on consideration of the pleadings and material evidence held that as per RC book sitting capacity of the said motorcycle was only 1+1, but in the instant case as three persons were traveling on the motorcycle at the time of accident same amounted to violation of rules, consequently concluded that there was negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle as well as the driver of the KSRTC bus to the extent of 25% and 75% respectively and both were held liable for payment of compensation in the ratio of 25% :
75%. The Tribunal, further held that the claimants are entitled for a compensation of Rs.7,95,200/- and directed the respondent No.2-insruance company to pay 75% of the said compensation amounting to Rs.5,96,400/-. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants have filed MFA.200161/2016.11
IN MFA.No.201493/2019 (MVC.No.379/2015)
9. The claimants in this case are parents of the deceased Anjinayya, who was the rider of the motorcycle. They filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Act, claiming inter alia that the accident had occurred solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver bus. That the deceased was a student, aged about 20 years and was assisting in agricultural work and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month and that due to his untimely death, the claimants were put to emotional and financial distress as such sought for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- together with interest thereon.
IN MFA.No.201495/2019 (MVC.378/2015):
10. The claimants in this case are the parents of the deceased Anjanamma, filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Act, claiming inter alia that the deceased was aged about 17 years and a brilliant 12 student, apart from helping in household work the deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month from agricultural work and was contributing entire earnings to the maintenance of the family. That due to untimely death of the deceased, the claimants were put to emotional and financial distress. Hence, sought for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- together with interest thereon.
11. Upon service of notices, the respondent No.1 appeared through his counsel and filed statement of objections denying the petition averments, age, occupation and income of the deceased. It was further contended that the rider of the motor cycle did not have valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident and that there was negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle in causing the accident.
Hence, sought for dismissal of the petition. 13
12. Respondent No.2-insruance company appeared through its counsel and filed written statement contending inter alia that the accident had occurred due to negligent riding of the motorcycle by its rider, who lost the control over the motorcycle due to traveling with 2 pillion riders and dashed against the bus, which is contrary to the provisions of the Act. Hence, sought for dismissal of the petition.
13. The Tribunal clubbed both the cases and framed issues and recorded evidence. Sri Balavantha, the father of deceased Anjanamma examined himself as PW.1 and Sri Amarayya, the father of the deceased Anjinappa examined himself as PW.2 and got marked 7 common documents as Exs.P1 to P7.
14. The Tribunal adopted the reasoning given in the aforesaid MVC.143/2015 with regard to the issue of contributory negligence to the extent of 25% on the rider of the motorcycle and 75% on the driver of the KSRTC 14 bus. Further relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kishan Gopal and others Vs. Lala and others, reported in AIR 2013 SC 5037, the Tribunal has awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of minor daughter of the claimant in MVC.378/2015. The Tribunal awarded Rs.6,15,000/- as compensation payable to the parents of the deceased Anjinappa in MVC.379/2015. However, while fixing the liability the Tribunal has held that the claimants in MVC.378/2015 were entitled for full compensation and the claimants in MVC.379/2015 were entitled for 75% of the compensation. Aggrieved by the aforesaid common judgment and award, the claimants have filed the aforesaid appeal in MFA.200493/2019 and MFA.200495/2019.
15. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that;
15
a) the Tribunal erred in attributing contributory negligence on the part of rider of the motor cycle at 25% merely because 3 persons were traveling thereon. He submitted that riding of the motorcycle with 2 pillion riders would itself not disentitle the claimants from seeking compensation. At the most it would amount to violation of provisions of the Act. Without any cogent evidence that the accident had occurred due to riding of the vehicle with 2 pillion riders resulting in the accident no negligence can be attributed. He relied upon the following judgments.
i) Mohammed Siddique and Anr. Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd., and others reported in (2020) 3 SCC 57;
16
ii) Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Smt. Sunanda and Others reported in (2011 Kant MAC 116),
iii) Pooja Devi and others Vs. Anjinayya and others reported in MANU/KA/3405/2017 and
iv) Yamanavva and ors Vs. Hanamanth and ors., reported in MANU/KA/2646/2020.
b) He further submitted that the assessment of income of the deceased by the Tribunal was improper and that the compensation awarded under the conventional head and future prospects are on the lower side. Hence, sought for enhancement of compensation.
16. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.2-insurance company submitted that the finding given by the Tribunal regarding contributory negligence in causing the accident is just and proper as 17 the rider of the bike had violated the provisions of the M.V. Act by traveling with 2 pillion riders. He submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and the same do not warrant any interference.
17. Heard Sri.Babu H. Metagudda, the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and Sri Deepak B. Basad, lenared counsel for the respondent No.2/insurance company and perused the records.
18. The issues that arise for our consideration are that whether the Tribunal was justified in attributing contributory negligence at 25% on the deceased and 75% on the driver of offending bus? and whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper?
19. The Apex Court in the case of Mohammed Siddique (supra); while dealing with an accident 18 involving motorcycle with 2 pillion riders has held at paragraphs 13 and 14 as under:
"13. Both the above reason, in our view, is flawed. The fact that the deceased was riding on a motor cycle along with the driver and another, may not, by itself, without anything more, make him guilty of contributory negligence. At the most it would make him guilty of being a party to the violation of the law, Section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, imposes a restriction on the driver of a two wheeled motor cycle, not to carry more than one person on the motor cycle. Section 194C inserted by the Amendment Act 32 of 2019, prescribes a penalty for violation of safety measures for motor cycle drivers and pillion riders. Therefore, the fact that a person was a pillion rider on a motor cycle along with the driver and one more person on the pillion, may be a violation of the law. But such violation by itself, without anything more, cannot lead to a finding of contributory negligence, unless it is established that his very act of riding along with two others, contributed either to the accident or to the impact of the accident upon the victim. There must either be a causal connection between the violation and the impact of the accident upon the victim. It may so happen at times, that the accident could have been averted or the injuries sustained could have been of a lesser degree, if there had been no violation of the law by the victim. What could otherwise have resulted in a simple injury, might have 19 resulted in a grievous injury or even death due to the violation of the law by the victim. It is in such cases, where, but for the violation of the law, either the accident could have been averted or the impact could have been minimized, that the principle of contributory negligence could be invoked. It is not the case of the insurer that the accident itself occurred as a result of three persons riding on a motor cycle. It is not even the case of the insurer that the accident would have been averted, if three persons were not riding on the motor cycle. The fact that the motor cycle was hit by the car from behind, is admitted. Interestingly, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the deceased was wearing a helmet and that the deceased was knocked down after the car hit the motor cycle from behind, are all not assailed. Therefore, the finding of the High Court that 2 persons on the pillion of the motor cycle, could have added to the imbalance, is nothing but presumptuous and is not based either upon pleading or upon the evidence on record. Nothing was extracted from PW.3 to the effect that 2 persons on the pillion added to the imbalance.
14. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence to show that the wrongful act on the part of the deceased victim contributed either to the accident or to the nature of the injuries sustained, the victim could not have been held guilty of contributory negligence. Hence the reduction of 10% towards contributory negligence, is clearly unjustified and the same has to be set aside."20
20. In the light of the aforesaid principles of law, it was incumbent upon the insurance company to have established that the accident occurred as a result of riding of the motor cycle by the rider with 2 pillion riders by producing the cogent evidence in this regard.
21. In the instant case, there is no material available on record even remotely to suggest that the accident itself occurred due to riding of the motor cycle by the rider with 2 pillion riders. The Tribunal in MVC.143/2015 at paragraph-16 has attributed negligence merely because the rider of the motor cycle had carried 3 persons in the motor cycle which was against the sitting capacity i.e., 1+1 and except this, there is no other reasoning given by the Tribunal.
22. We have perused the FIR at Ex.P.1 and the charge sheet at Ex.P.5 filed against respondent No.1 KSRTC bus driver and the spot sketch forming part of 21 the same. The said sketch suggests that the deceased was traveling from Sirvur towards Navalakka and the KSRTC bus was coming from the opposite direction. The spot of the accident suggests that the two wheeler was on the left hand side of the road. This further suggests that the accident had occurred due to the negligent driving of the driver of the bus who has come on to the track of the motor cycle from the opposite direction. This aspect of the matter has missed the attention of the Tribunal and there is no discussion thereon.
23. There is no evidence on record that because of triple riding, the rider of the motor cycle had lost control over it led to accident. Thus we are of the considered opinion that in the absence of evidence to the effect that the rider of the motor cycle had ridden the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner contributing to the occurrence of the accident and in view of the aforesaid factual aspect of the matter 22 attributing 25% of the negligence on the rider of the motor cycle merely because there were 2 pillion riders is incorrect and same is set aside.
24. Adverting to the determination of quantum of compensation, the claimants in MFA.200161/2016 have contended that the deceased Shivappa was aged about 19 years and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. However, no material is produced to establish the income of the deceased. The Tribunal has taken the notional income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month adding 30% to the same has assessed the income at Rs.7,800/- per month and has deducted 50% of the same as the deceased was bachelor. Further the Tribunal has taken age of the father of the deceased for the purpose of applying multiplier. It is settled law that the age of the deceased is to be taken into consideration while applying multiplier, as such multiplier applied by 23 the Tribunal taking age of the father of deceased is incorrect.
25. In the absence of material evidence with regard to the income, this Court adopts the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for the purpose of determining the notional income. In the instant case, the accident is of the year 2014, as per the chart notional income for the accident of the year 2014 is Rs.7,500/-. As the deceased aged 19 years, 40% has to be added towards future prospects as per the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157.
26. Thus, the monthly income of the deceased would be Rs.10,500/- (Rs.7,500 + 40% = Rs.10,500/-). Out of the said amount, 50% needs to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased as he was a 24 bachelor. Thus, the monthly income of the deceased would be Rs.5,250/-. Considering the age of the deceased as 19 years, the appropriate multiplier applicable is '18'. The loss of dependency computed as above, would be Rs.11,34,000/-. [Rs.7,500/- + 40% (Rs.3,000) = Rs.10,500/-. Rs.10,500 - 50% (towards personal expenses) = Rs.5,250/- x 12 x 18 (multiplier) =Rs.11,34,000/-].
27. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram & Ors. reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, which is later confirmed by the Apex Court in case of United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Satinder Kaur & Ors. reported in AIR 2020 SC 3076, the claimant Nos.1 and 2 being the parents of the deceased are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each under the head of loss of consortium and claimant No.3 being unmarried sister of the deceased is entitled for 25 Rs.40,000/- under the head of loss of love and affection. In addition, the claimants are also entitled for compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the claimants in MFA.No.200161/2016 are entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.4,88,800/- as herein under.
Heads By Tribunal By this Court
Loss of dependency & Rs.6,55,200/- Rs.11,34,000/-
expectancy
Loss of love and affection Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.40,000/-
to claimant No.3
Towards loss of parental ---- Rs.80,000/-
consortium to claimant
Nos.1 and 2
Funeral expenses Rs.25,000/- Rs.15,000/-
Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.7,95,200/- Rs.12,84,000/-
Difference amount Rs.4,88,800/-
28. Adverting to the determination of quantum of compensation, in MFA.201493/2019, the claimants therein have claimed that the deceased Anjinayya was aged about 20 years at the time of accident and was student and was also assisting in agricultural work and 26 earning Rs.6,000/- per month. The Tribunal has however taken notional income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/-and has deducted 50% of the same as the deceased was bachelor. Further the Tribunal considering the age of the deceased at 20 years for the purpose of applying multiplier as 18. Accordingly, the Tribunal arrived at the loss of dependency at Rs.5,40,000/-. The Tribunal has not awarded compensation under the head of future prospects. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants are entitled for 40% of future prospects.
29. The notional income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.5,000/-, is on the lower side. Hence, we deem it appropriate to enhance it at Rs.6,000/- as claimed by the claimants. To the said monthly income, as the deceased was aged 20 years, 40% has to be added towards future prospects. Thus, 27 the monthly income of the deceased would be Rs.8,,000/- (Rs.6,000 + 40% = Rs.8,000/-). Out of the said amount, 50% needs to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased as he was bachelor. Thus, the monthly income of the deceased would be Rs.4,000/-. Considering the age of the deceased as 20 years, the appropriate multiplier applicable is '18'.
31. The loss of dependency computed as above, the claimants would be entitled for a total sum of Rs.8,64,000/-. [Rs.6,000/- + 40% (Rs.2,000) = Rs.8,000/-. Rs.8,000 - 50% (towards personal expenses) = Rs.4,000/- x 12 x 18 (multiplier) =Rs.8,64,000/-].
32. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra), which is later confirmed by the Apex Court in the case of Satinder Kaur (supra), the claimant 28 No.s1 and 2 being the parents of the deceased are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each under the head of loss of consortium.
33. In addition, the claimants are also entitled for compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the claimants in MFA.No.201493/2019 are entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.3,59,000/- as herein under.
Heads By Tribunal By this Court
Loss of dependency & Rs.5,40,000/- Rs.8,64,000/-
expectancy
Loss of estate Rs.50,000/- Rs.15,000/-
Towards loss of parental ---- Rs.80,000/-
consortium to claimant
Nos.1 and 2
Funeral & obsequies Rs.25,000/- Rs.15,000/-
expenses
Total Rs.6,15,000/- Rs.9,74,000/-
Difference amount Rs.3,59,000/-
34. As regards to the determination of quantum of compensation, the claimants in MFA.201495/2019 have claimed that the deceased Anjanamma was aged 29 about 17 years at the time of accident and was student and used to help in the household work and earning Rs.6,000/- per month from the agricultural work. The Tribunal, relied upon the principles of law laid down in the case of Kishan Gopal (supra), has awarded Rs.5,00,000/-. The coordinate bench of this court in its judgment dated 13/11/2020 passed in MFA 102268/2019, distinguishing the principles of law in Kishan Gopal (supra) and referring the provisions of Section 2(i) and (ii) of the Child and Adolesent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986, has held that the a victim aged 17 years could not be considered as a child and has to be considered as Adolescent, eligible for carrying out certain occupation and process. Therefore, we are inclined to consider the view expressed by the coordinate bench of this court in the aforesaid judgment.
30
The notional income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.5,000/- is on the lower side. Hence, we deem it appropriate to enhance it at Rs.6,000/- per month as claimed by the claimants. To the said monthly income, as the deceased was aged 17 years, 40% has to be added towards future prospects. Thus, the monthly income of the deceased would be Rs.8,,000/- (Rs.6,000 + 40% = Rs.8,000/-). Out of the said amount, 50% needs to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased as she was bachelor.
35. To the said monthly income, as the deceased was aged 17 years, 40% has to be added towards future prospects. Thus, the monthly income of the deceased would be Rs.8,000/- (Rs.6,000 + 40% = Rs.8,000/-). Out of the said amount, 50% needs to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased as she was bachelor. Thus, the monthly income of the deceased would be Rs.4,000/-. Considering the age of the 31 deceased as 17 years, the appropriate multiplier applicable is '18'.
36. The loss of dependency computed as above, the claimants would be entitled for a total sum of Rs.8,64,000/-. [Rs.6,000/- + 40% (Rs.2,000) = Rs.8,000/-. Rs.8,000 - 50% (towards personal expenses) = Rs.4,000/- x 12 x 18 (multiplier) =Rs.8,64,000/-].
37. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra), which is later confirmed by the Apex Court in case of Satinder Kaur (supra), the claimant No.s1 and 2 being the parents of the deceased are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each under the head of loss of parental consortium.
38. In addition, the claimants are also entitled for compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate 32 and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the claimants in MFA.No.201495/2019 are entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.3,59,000/- as herein under.
Heads By Tribunal By this Court
Loss of dependency & Rs.5,40,000/- Rs.8,64,000/-
expectancy
Loss of estate Rs.50,000/- Rs.15,000/-
Towards loss of parental ---- Rs.80,000/-
consortium to claimant
Nos.1 and 2
Funeral & obsequies Rs.25,000/- Rs.15,000/-
expenses
Total Rs.6,15,000/- Rs.9,74,000/-
Difference amount Rs.3,59,000/-
39. Thus, the claimants in
MFA.No.200161/2016 are entitled for enhanced
compensation of Rs.4,88,800/- and claimants in
MFA.201493/2019 and MFA.201495/2019 are entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.3,59,000/- each with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.
33
40. However, the claimants in MFA.201493/2019 and MFA.201495/2019 are not entitled to the interest for the delayed period of 1072 days and 1065 days respectively in filing the appeal.
41. The appellant-Insurance company shall deposit the aforesaid enhanced compensation with interest, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
Accordingly, the appeals are allowed-in-part.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Mkm