Rangamma W/O Nagappa @ Nagappa And ... vs Shankrappa S/O Dodda Bheemanna ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2900 Kant

                            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

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.

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)

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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;

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;

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

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

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

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. 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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,

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

      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