Karnataka High Court
Vithal Bhomani Sulagekar vs Major/ Capt../ Commander Rsd on 3 March, 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3 R D DAY OF MARCH, 2020
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.A.PATIL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I. ARUN
MFA No.24786 OF 2013 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. Shri Vithal Bhomani Sulagekar (Amended v.c.o
Since deceased by his LRs. dated 2.3.2020)
Appellant nos.2 to 4
2. Smt. Shobha W/o. Vithal Sulagekar
Age: 47 years, Occ: Household work
3. Smt. Sadhana W/o. Raju Sulagekar
Age: 27 years, Occ: Household work
4. Master Pratik S/o. Raju Sulagekar
Age: 6 years, Minor R/by his
Natural mother M/G Appellant no.3
All are R/o Laxmi Galli
Machhe, Belgaum ... APPELLANTS
(By Sri B.Sharanabasawa, Advocate)
AND:
1. Major/Capt./Commander R.S.D.
C.V.D. Delhi Cantonment
:2:
Through its office at
HQ Junior Leader Wing, Comp
Belgaum
2. Union of India
R/by its Commander R.S.D. C.V.D.
Delhi Cantonment
Through its Belgaum
Office at HQ Junior Leader Wing,
Camp, Belgaum
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri Venkatesh M Kharvi, CGSC (Absent))
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 16.11.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.1119/2010
ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, BELGAUM,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, B.A.PATIL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 16.11.2012 passed by the :3: Principal Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Belgaum in MVC No.1119/2010.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants. Learned counsel for the respondents remained absent. There is no representation.
3. Though this appeal is listed for orders, with the consent of the learned counsel for the appellants, the same is taken up for final disposal.
4. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
On 05.02.2010, at 10.35 hours, one Raju Sulagekar was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-22/R-3054 near Belgaum camp Military officers mess circle, at that time, the driver of military vehicle bearing No.M.T.99D117092X TATA LPTA 2.5 ton came :4: from behind in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle of the deceased, due to which, he sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. For having lost the earning member, petitioner nos.1 and 2 who are the parents, petitioner no.3 being the wife and petitioner no.4 being the minor child of the deceased, filed a claim petition claiming compensation.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal has erred in considering the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate. It is further contended that the compensation awarded under the conventional heads is also on the lower side. Hence, he prayed to allow the appeal and to enhance the compensation. :5:
6. On perusal of the records, the accident in question is not in dispute. Further, the said vehicle is insured with respondent no.2. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the compensation awarded including the conventional heads is on the lower side. It is his contention that the deceased was doing agriculture, dairy business and was also working as an agent in PACL India Limited and was earning good income. However, in order to substantiate the said fact though he has produced Exs.P8 to P13, they would not substantiate the actual income which the deceased used to earn at the time of the alleged accident. In the absence of any concrete material, it is very difficult to accept the contention taken by the learned counsel for the appellants. However, the notional income that was prevailing during the year 2010 has to be :6: taken into consideration. At that time, the notional income was Rs.5,500/- per month. The claimants have also produced certain records to substantiate the fact that he was earning some income and it was permanent income. In that view of the matter, future prospects has to be awarded to the claimants. The deceased was aged about 36 years as on the date of the accident. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Ors. reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, 40% future prospects has to be added as he is not having permanent income and after deducting 1/4 t h towards his personal expenses, the total income of the deceased will be Rs.5,775/- per month and by adopting the multiplier of 15, then under such circumstances, the appellants/claimants are entitled to an amount of Rs.10,39,500/- :7: towards loss of dependency. The Tribunal without taking into consideration that the deceased was getting some income and in the absence of any income, the Tribunal ought to have taken note of the notional income and ought to have awarded future prospects and thereafter proper calculation ought to have been done. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the claimants are entitled to the above said amount under the head loss of dependency. In view of the decision of Pranay Sethi's case quoted supra, under the conventional heads, the claimants are entitled to an amount of Rs.70,000/-. Taking into consideration the above said facts and circumstances, the appellants/claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.11,09,500/-. Since the Tribunal has already awarded a compensation of Rs.6,49,500/-, the appellants/claimants are :8: entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.4,60,000/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till realization. The respondents are hereby directed to deposit the enhanced compensation within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
7. In the light of the discussion held above, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 16.11.2012 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Belgaum in MVC No.1119 of 2010 is modified as indicated above.
8. Appellant no.1 has died. Appellant no.2 is the mother of the deceased and the Tribunal has apportioned 10% to appellant no.2 and the Tribunal is directed to disburse the amount accordingly. The remaining amount has to be equally disbursed between appellant nos.3 and 4 :9: and the apportionment of the amount in favour of appellant no.4 shall be kept in any Nationalised Bank, till he attains the age of majority.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE hkh.