IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY
M.F.A. NO.9895 OF 2012 (MV-D)
C/W
M.F.A. NO.840 OF 2013 (MV-D)
IN MFA NO.9895/2012:
BETWEEN:
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
MUSEUM ROAD, NO.21,
ST.PATRICK BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560025.
THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD.
KRISHI BHAVAN, 5TH FLOOR,
NRUPATUNGA ROAD,
BANGALORE-560001.
REP. BY ITS MANAGER
SMT.P.NAVAMANY
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B.C. SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
1. SMT. B.S. BHAVYA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
W/O LATE K.BHANUPRAKASH
2. SRI.B.KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
S/O SRI. BYRAPPA
3. SMT. C.ASHA DEVI
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
W/O B.KRISHNAPPA
4. KUM. B.RISHITHA
D/O LATE K.BHANUPRAKASH,
AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS,
SINCE MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER
THE FIRST RESPONDENT HEREIN B.S.BHAVYA
ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.28,
3RD CROSS, GANESHA BLOCK,
SULTHAN PALYA,
R.T.NAGAR POST,
BANGALORE-560032.
5. SRI. K.JAGADISH,
MAJOR,
S/O K.N.KRISHNAPPA,
NO.24, 2ND CROSS,
ANKAPPA BLOCK,
J.C.NAGAR,
BANGALORE-560022.
(OWNER OF TEMPO NO.KA.04/D-9396)
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. D.N.NANJUNDA REDDY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. C.ASHWATHAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NOS.1 TO 4;
3
NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.5 IS SERVED BUT
UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
25.08.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.3625/2008 ON THE FILE
OF THE XX ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND XVIII ACMM, MACT,
BANGALORE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF
RS.47,38,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE
DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT IN COURT.
IN MFA NO.840/2013:
BETWEEN:
1. B.S. BHAVYA
W/O LATE K. BHANUPRAKASH
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
2. SRI. B. KRISHNAPPA
S/O SRI. BYRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
3. SMT. C. ASHA DEVI
W/O B. KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
4. KUMARI B. RISHITHA
D/O LATE K. BHANUPRAKASH,
AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS,
SINCE MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HER
MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN
SMT. B.S. BHAVYA
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
NO.28, 3RD CROSS,
GANESHA BLOCK,
SULATHANPALYA,
4
R.T. NAGAR POST,
BANGALORE-560032.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. C. ASWATHAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. K. JAGADISH
MAJOR,
S/O K.N. KRISHNAPPA,
NO.24, 2ND CROSS,
ANKAPPA BLOCK,
J.C. NAGAR, BANGALORE-560022.
2. THE MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NO.21, ST.PATRICK BUILDING,
MUSEUM ROAD,
BANGALORE-560025.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.C. SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENT NO.2;
SERVICE OF NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.1 IS
DISPENSED WITH VIDE COURT ORDER DATED
04.04.2014)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
25.08.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.3625/2008 ON THE FILE
OF THE XX ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND XVIII ACMM, MACT,
BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION
FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS
DAY, NATARAJ RANGASWAMY, J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
5
JUDGMENT
MFA No.9895/2012 is filed by the insurer challenging the quantum of compensation as well as the liability imposed upon it to pay the compensation awarded by the MACT, XX Additional Judge and XVIII ACMM, Bengaluru in MVC No.3625/2008.
2. MFA No.840/2013 is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded in MVC No.3625/2008 awarded by the MACT, XX Additional Judge and XVIII ACMM, Bengaluru in MVC No.3625/2008.
3. The parties shall henceforth be referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
4. The claim petition discloses that the claimants are the legal representatives of Bhanuprakash K. It is stated that on 30.03.2008, the said Mr.Bhanuprakash was riding his motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-04-EA- 6652 on the left side of C.B.I road and when he took a turn towards the R.T.Nagar Cross in front of Ashakiran 6 Children's Clinic at about 11.50 pm., the driver of a Tempo Traveler bearing registration No.KA-04-D-9396 (hereinafter referred to as the 'offending vehicle') drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle ridden by Bhanuprakash. As a result, the said Bhanuprakash fell down and sustained injuries and was shifted to Chaitanya Nursing Home where he was administered first aid, and then shifted to M.S.Ramaiah Hospital where he succumbed to the injuries. It was claimed that the deceased was employed as a Senior Software Engineer at M/s Accenture Services Private Limited, Bannerghatta Road, Bengaluru and was earning a monthly salary of Rs.86,000/- per month. The claimants contended that on account of the sudden demise, they suffered untold pain and suffering and also immense financial hardship. The claimants alleged that the driver of the offending vehicle was negligent and was responsible for the accident and therefore filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.3.00 Crores.
7
5. The owner of the offending vehicle did not contest the claim petition. The insurer of the offending vehicle contested the claim petition and denied the averments of the claim petition. It contended that the accident was due to the negligence on the part of the deceased who rode his motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner and took a sudden turn from a side road on to the main road without observing the oncoming traffic. The insurer therefore, contended that the driver of the offending vehicle could not have averted the accident. The insurer contended that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid licence to drive the offending vehicle.
6. Based on these rival contentions, the claim petition was set down for trial.
7. Before the Tribunal, the claimant No.2 was examined as PW1 and two witnesses were examined as PWs.2 and 3 and marked Exs.P1 to P21. The driver of the offending vehicle was examined as RW1 and the 8 Administrative Officer of the insurer of the offending vehicle was examined as RW2 and they marked documents as Exs.R1 to P12.
8. The Tribunal noticed the evidence of PW2 who deposed that on 30.03.2008, he saw the deceased who was riding his motor cycle on the extreme left side of the road and that about 11.50 pm., the driver of the offending vehicle drove it from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle. PW2 was the person who shifted the deceased to the nearby Chaitanya Nursing Home. The Tribunal also noticed the evidence of RW1, who in his in his examination in chief stated that, at the time of the accident BMTC buses of R.T.Nagar Depot were parked on the left side of the R.T.Nagar main road. Hence, when he reached CBI cross road, the deceased came from the CBI cross road and suddenly turned towards R.T.Nagar main road. He deposed in his cross examination that the R.T.Nagar main road and CBI main road were 80 feet wide. He further deposed that since BMTC buses were parked on the left 9 side of the road, he swerved the offending vehicle on the right side and dashed against the motor cycle ridden by the deceased. The Tribunal also noticed Ex.P3 which indicated that the spot of the accident was on the right side of the road leading from South to North. It also noticed that the jurisdictional police had charge sheeted the driver of the offending vehicle in C.C.No.1322/2008. The Tribunal also verified form the MV report that the front right corner head light, parking light, corner bumper and top body of the parking light were damaged. Hence, the Tribunal held that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. In so far as the claim for compensation is concerned, it noticed that the claimant Nos.1 and 4 were the wife and daughter of the deceased while claimant Nos.2 and 3 were the parents of the deceased. PW1 deposed that the deceased was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.86,652/-. The claimants examined PW3 who was the HR Manager at M/s Accenture Services Private Limited who deposed that the deceased was employed as a Senior Software Engineer between 16.03.2004 and 30.03.2008 and was drawing a 10 salary of Rs.86,652/- per month. The Tribunal noticed from Ex.P16 that the gross annual compensation paid by the M/s Accenture Services Private Limited to the deceased was a sum of Rs.5,88,214/- per annum. The Income Tax Returns of the deceased for the Assessment Year 2005-06 indicated the income from salary at a sum of Rs.1,71,740/- and after deducting the income tax of Rs.17,307/- paid, the net income was a sum of Rs.1,54,433/-. Thus, the Tribunal held that the monthly income of the deceased during the year 2004-05 was a sum of Rs.12,869/-. In so far as the income of the deceased for the year 2007-08, the Tribunal though noticed Ex.P7 which was the salary slip for the month of March 2008 which indicated his monthly income as Rs.86,652/-, yet it held that after deducting the house rent allowance, special allowance, conveyance, hot skill bonus and variable pay local, the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.18,405/-. The Tribunal held that the income of the deceased could not be considered at a sum of Rs.86,652/- per month. The Tribunal took exception to the claimants not producing the pass book of the deceased 11 which he had maintained at HDFC and ICICI Banks. Thus, the Tribunal on preponderance of probabilities assessed the average salary of the deceased at a sum of Rs.23,000/- per month. The Tribunal noticed that the deceased was a permanent employee at M/s Accenture Services Private Limited and therefore, held that the deceased would have progressed vertically in his carrier and that the claimants were entitled to the loss of future prospects at the rate of 50% of the actual income of the deceased. The Tribunal noticed the age of the deceased was 28 years as per Ex.P13 and applying the proper multiplier of '17' awarded the following compensation.
Heads under which Amount in
compensation awarded Rupees
Towards loss of dependency 46,92,000
Loss of love and affection 15,000
Loss of consortium 15,000
Funeral and conveyance expenses 10,000
Medical expenses 6,000
Total 47,38,000
9. In so far as the liability to pay the
compensation is concerned, the Tribunal noticed that the 12 offending vehicle was owned by the respondent No.1 and duly insured by the insurer and therefore, directed that the compensation shall be paid jointly and severally by the insurer and the owner of the offending vehicle.
10. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment and Award the insurer has filed an appeal challenging the quantum as well as the liability to pay the compensation. The claimants have also filed the appeal for enhancement contending that the Tribunal ought to have considered the income of the deceased at a sum of Rs.86,652/- per month.
11. During the pendency of these appeals this Court in terms of the Order dated 28.11.2019, allowed I.A.No.1/2015 filed by the claimants in MFA No.9895/2012 for production of additional evidence and directed the Tribunal to permit the claimants to adduce further evidence. Consequent thereto, the claimants marked Exs.P22 and 23.
13
12. The insurer contended in this appeal that Ex.P3 indicated that the deceased came on to the R.T.Nagar main road from the CBI road without noticing the oncoming offending vehicle and therefore, the deceased had contributed to the accident, which the Tribunal lost sight of. The learned counsel reiterated that the Tribunal committed an error in solely relying upon the evidence of RW1 to hold that the driver of the offending vehicle was negligent and was responsible for the accident. The learned counsel further contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was acquitted in the criminal case and therefore, it could not be held that the driver of the offending vehicle was negligent and was responsible for the accident. The learned counsel therefore, contended that the Tribunal ought to have held that the deceased had contributed in the causation of the accident and ought not to have held that the driver of the offending vehicle was alone negligent and responsible for the accident. The learned counsel further contended that the claimants had received a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- from the employer of the 14 deceased on account of a personal accident insurance cover that was availed by the employer for the deceased. The learned counsel therefore, contended that in view of the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Helen C. Rebello (Mrs) and Others vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Another reported in (1999) 1 SCC 90 the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- received by the claimants was "pecuniary advantage" received by the claimants on account of the death and that therefore, the same had to be deducted from out of the compensation payable to the claimants. In so far as the income of the deceased is concerned, the learned counsel pointed out that the bank extract issued by HDFC Bank indicated that the deceased was drawing salary of Rs.40,092/- for the month of January, 2008 and a sum of Rs.63,531/- during March, 2008. He therefore, contended that the claim of the claimants that the deceased was earning Rs.86,652/- per month was without any basis. The learned counsel also invited the attention of the Court to Ex.P23(a) which was the income tax return of the 15 deceased for the year 2008-09 which was filed on 13.01.2010 which indicated the gross total income of the deceased was Rs.6,29,744/-, while the total income after deductions was Rs.5,87,810/- and after deducting the tax of Rs.1,29,103/- the annual income would be Rs.4,58,707/- and therefore, the monthly income would be Rs.38,225/-. The learned counsel contended that Ex.P23(a) could not be believed since the same was filed on 30.01.2010 long after the accident. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the only tangible evidence available was the HDFC Bank extract which indicated the income of the deceased. The learned counsel took us through the Bank extract which indicated that the income of the deceased varied from Rs.9,393/- during March, 2004 to Rs.63,531/- during March, 2008. The learned counsel therefore, contended that there was no clear proof about the actual income earned by the deceased. Lastly, the counsel for the insurer contended that Ex.R8 indicated that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid licence and that there was a violation of condition of 16 the policy and that it was not liability to pay the compensation. Therefore, the learned counsel for the insurer claimed that the Judgment and Award of the Tribunal deserve to be interfered with.
13. Per contra, Sri.Nanjunda Reddy, Senior counsel appearing for the appellants contended that there was voluminous evidence on record to indicate the monthly income of the deceased at a sum of Rs.86,652/-. The learned senior counsel took us through the evidence of PW3 who was the HR Manager at M/s Accenture Services Private Limited who deposed that the deceased was a Senior Manager and was earning a sum of Rs.86,652/- per month. PW3 marked Exs.P15 to P18 which was the letter of authorization authorizing PW3 to depose before the Court, the details of annual compensation payable to the deceased, the letter of appointment dated 09.03.2004 which indicated that the deceased was offered an employment of Software Engineer on an annual pay packet of Rs.2,75,000/- and that the deceased would be entitled 17 to variable pay of Rs.20,625/- for the Financial Year 2004. The learned Senior counsel also brought to the notice of this Court Exs.P19 to P21 which indicated that the deceased was awarded for his valuable contribution and exemplary team performance. The learned Senior counsel also contended that the tax computation sheet issued by M/s Accenture Services Private Limited for the year 2005- 06 indicated a gross salary of Rs.3,43,040/- and that the gross income of the deceased grew to Rs.6,32,144/- as per the Form-16 issued by the M/s Accenture Services Private Limited. The learned Senior counsel contended that the income tax return filed for the year 2008-09 was not jacked up to make an exorbitant claim but was based on the Form No.16 issued by the M/s Accenture Services Private Limited. The learned Senior claimed that when PW1 was further examined before the Trial Court, there was not even a suggestion put to PW1 that Ex.P23(a) was not based on the Form No.16 issued. The learned Senior counsel invited the attention of this Court to the suggestion put to PW1 during his cross examination on 18 19.12.2019 where the counsel for the insurer suggested to PW1 that the deceased was earning monthly salary of Rs.63,531/- per month after all deductions. Therefore, the learned Senior counsel submitted that the income of the deceased could not have been considered by the Tribunal at a sum of Rs.23,000/- per month and therefore, prayed that this Court may consider the income of the deceased at a sum of Rs.63,531/ per month. The learned Senior counsel contended that the deceased was 28 years old, the claimants were entitled to loss of future prospects at the rate of 50% of the actual income of the deceased.
14. In so far as the question regarding the contributory negligence is concerned, the learned Senior counsel invited the attention of the Court to Ex.P2 which was the spot mahazar which indicated that the road width at the spot of the accident was 65 feet. The learned Senior counsel pointed out from Ex.P3 that the place of the accident was more towards the right side on the road running South to North. Therefore, he contended that the 19 offending vehicle which was moving from South to North came on to the right track and dashed against the motor cycle ridden by the deceased. Therefore, the learned Senior counsel claimed that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. He invited the attention of the Court to evidence of RW1 wherein he categorically stated that on the road running from South to North (R.T.Nagar Main Road) there were buses belonging to BMTC parked on the left side and therefore, he had to move his vehicle towards the left side and that the same caused the accident. The learned Senior counsel therefore contended that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Further, he contended that the accident occurred at 11.50 pm., and that the damages caused on the right side of the offending vehicle clearly indicated that it was the driver of the offending vehicle was negligent and dashed against the motor cycle ridden by the deceased.
20
15. The learned Senior counsel contended that a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- that was received by the claimants from M/s Accenture Services Private Limited was on account of the personal accident cover for which the Employer of the deceased was paying the premium. Therefore, the learned Senior counsel contended that this amount was not to be deducted from the compensation payable to the claimants. The learned Senior counsel also submitted that the claimant No.4 was entitled to loss of parental love and affection and the claimant Nos.2 and 3 were entitled to loss of filial consortium at Rs.40,000/- each as decided by the Apex Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others reported in AIR 2020 SC 3076.
16. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the material on record and we have perused the records of the Trial Court, its Judgment and Award as well as the 21 grounds urged by the insurer and the claimants in their respective appeals.
17. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of the accident in which the deceased suffered serious injuries and died on the way to the Hospital. It is seen from Ex.P3 which is the sketch of the scene of the accident drawn by the jurisdictional police in Crime No.56/2008 that the accident occurred more on the right side of the road running from South to North. The offending vehicle was proceeding from South to North, while the deceased was proceeding from North to South on the left side. Ex.P4 which is the report of the Motor Vehicles Inspector indicates that the front right corner head light and parking light, right corner bumper were damaged. In addition to the above, RW1 in his deposition clearly stated that buses belonging to BMTC were parked on the left side of the road running from South to North and therefore, he had to move away from the parked buses, on to the right side of the road and that as a result the accident occurred in 22 which the deceased died. It is hence, clear that the deceased was well within his track on the road and the damages on the offending vehicle make it clear that it was not a head on collusion but it was a clear case of the offending vehicle dashing against the motor cycle ridden by the deceased. It is now trite and as held by the Apex Court in Mangla Ram vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in 2018(5) SCC 656 that the person who alleges contributory negligence ought to prove it by credible evidence, which in the present case is clearly absent. The simple and effective test to determine contributory negligence is as to who was in a position to avert the accident and whether such person attempted to avert it. The other test is whether the person accused of contributory negligence had exercised care, precaution and vigilance which a person of ordinary prudence would exercise in the circumstances. In the case on hand, there was no traffic prohibition for the deceased to enter the RT Nagar Main road from the CBI Road. The deceased was within his track of the road and the evidence of RW1 23 indicates that the driver moved the vehicle on to his right side and dashed against the deceased. Hence, there is no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and it was the driver of the offending vehicle who must have exercised caution, more so, when he was aware that there was not enough space on his track of the road as buses were parked. Consequently, we do not find any exception to the finding recorded by the Tribunal that it was the driver of the offending vehicle who was negligent and who was responsible for the accident.
18. In so far as the question whether a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- received by the claimants from the Employer is to be deducted form the compensation payable, the Apex Court in the case of Reliance General Insurance Company Limited vs. Shashi Sharma and Others reported in 2016(9) SCC 627 considered its earlier Judgment in Halen C. Rebello and held as follows:
"15. The principle expounded in this decision in Helen C. Rebello case [(1999) 1 SCC 90] that 24 the application of general principles under the common law to estimate damages cannot be invoked for computing compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. Further, the "pecuniary advantage" from whatever source must correlate to the injury or death caused on account of motor accident. The view so taken is the correct analysis and interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939, and must apply proprio vigore to the corresponding provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This principle has been restated in the subsequent decision of the two-Judge Bench in Patricia Jean Mahajan case [(2002) 6 SCC 281], to reject the argument of the Insurance Company to deduct the amount receivable by the dependents of the deceased by way of "social security compensation" and "life insurance policy".
17. Be that as it may, the term "compensation" has not been defined in the Act of 1988. By interpretative process, it has been understood to mean to recompense the claimants for the possible loss suffered or likely to be suffered due to sudden and untimely death of their family member as a result of motor accident. Two cardinal principles run through the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 in the matter of determination of compensation. Firstly, the measure of compensation must be just and adequate; and 25 secondly, no double benefit should be passed on to the claimants in the matter of award of compensation. Section 168 of the 1988 Act makes the first principle explicit. Sub-section (1) of that provision makes it clear that the amount of compensation must be just. The word "just" means
- fair, adequate, and reasonable. It has been derived from the Latin word "justus", connoting right and fair. In para 7 of State of Haryana v. Jasbir Kaur & Ors.[(2003) 7 SCC 484], it has been held that expression "just" denotes that the amount must be equitable, fair, reasonable and not arbitrary. In para 16 of Sarla Verma v. DTC [(2009) 6 scc 121], this Court has observed that the compensation "is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit". That, however may depend upon facts and circumstances of each case, as to what amount would be a just compensation.
18. The principle discernable from the exposition in Helen C.Rebello's case [(1999) 1 SCC 90] is that if the amount "would be due to the dependants of the deceased even otherwise", the same shall not be deductible from the compensation amount payable under the 1988 Act. At the same time, it must be borne in mind that loss of income is a significant head under which compensation is claimed in terms of the 1988 Act. The component of quantum of "loss of income", 26 inter alia, can be "pay and wages" which otherwise would have been earned by the deceased employee if he had survived the injury caused to him due to motor accident. If the dependents of the deceased employee, however, were to be compensated by the employer in that behalf, as is predicated by the 2006 Rules - to grant compassionate assistance by way of ex-gratia financial assistance on compassionate grounds to the dependents of the deceased Government employee who dies in harness, it is unfathomable that the dependents can still be permitted to claim the same amount as a possible or likely loss of income to be suffered by them to maintain a claim for compensation under the 1988 Act."
19. In view of the above, the Tribunal was justified in not deducting the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- received by the claimants from the employer which was infact a personal accident cover in respect of the deceased which was availed by the employer for the deceased.
20. In so far as the income of the deceased is concerned, the statement of total income for the assessment year 2008-09 shows the total salary of a sum of Rs.6,32,144/- and the total taxable income was a sum 27 of Rs.5,87,810/-. The claimants had paid a sum of Rs.1,25,343/- and therefore, the annual income of the deceased must have been Rs.4,62,467/- and the monthly income must have been Rs.38,538/-. In addition, the deceased had paid a premium towards LIC of a sum of Rs.15,736/- and there was a deduction of Rs.26,202/- towards PF., and if this is added on to the annual income the total income of the deceased would have been Rs.5,04,405/- and the monthly income would have been Rs.42,033/- after deducting the tax. It is inevitable in Motor Accident cases that claims for compensation has to be adjudicated upon by some guess work and therefore, the monthly income of the deceased could be accepted at a sum of Rs.42,000/-. Since, the deceased was 28 years old, the claimants were entitled to the loss of future prospects of the actual income of the deceased at the rate of 50% of his actual income. Since, the deceased left behind the four dependents, as held by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, 1/4th of his income has to be notionally deducted towards the living 28 expenses of the deceased. Consequently, the loss of dependency of the claimants would be Rs.47,250/- per month. The claimants would therefore, be entitled to loss of dependency of Rs.96,39,000/-. As rightly contended by the learned Senior counsel for the claimants, the claimant No.4 is entitled to loss of parental consortium which is assessed at a sum of Rs.40,000/-. Like wise, the loss of filial consortium to the claimant Nos.2 and 3 is also to be assessed at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each as per the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others. Hence, the claimants are entitled to the following compensation.
Heads under which Amount in
compensation awarded Rupees
Towards loss of dependency 96,39,000
Loss of parental love and affection to 40,000
claimant No.4
Loss of consortium to claimant No.1 25,000
Loss of filial consortium to claimant 80,000
Nos.2 and 3
Medical expenses 6,000
Loss of estate 25,000
Funeral expenses 20,000
Total 98,35,000
29
21. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the insurer in MFA No.9895/2012 is dismissed and the appeal filed by the claimants for enhancement in MFA No.840/2013 is allowed in part.
22. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal in MVC No.3625/2008 is enhanced by a sum of Rs.50,97,000/-which is payable by the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realization.
23. The insurer is directed to deposit the compensation along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Judgment.
24. Upon such deposit, 50% of the amount shall be kept in the Fixed Deposit in the name of the claimant No.4 till she attains the age of majority. Out of the remaining 50%, 25% shall be kept in a Fixed Deposit in 30 the name of the claimant No.1 in any Nationalized Bank for a period of five years. Out of the remaining 25%, the same shall be released in equal portions to the claimant Nos.1, 2 and 3. In the result, the appeals are disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE GH