w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Kamal & Others v/s Shakuntala Maruti Aute Major, OCC: Business, Maharashtra & Another

    Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 20858 of 2013 (MV)

    Decided On, 28 February 2018

    At, High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT

    For the Appellants: Srinand A Pachhapure, Advocate. For the Respondents: R2, M.G. Gadagoli, Advocate, R1, Served.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: This MFA filed U/Sec.173(1) of MV Act, 1988, against the judgment and award Dated:01-01-2013 passed in MVC No.2384/2011 on the file of The Prl.Senior Civil Judge and Member, Addl. MACT, Belgaum, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.)

S.G. Pandit, J.

1. Wife and children of the deceased are before this Court in the above appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 14.9.2011, at about 13.15 hours, when the deceased was proceeding on motorcycle, due to rash and negligent driving of TATA 407 which was coming from opposite direction, met with an accident and died on the spot. The deceased is the husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner Nos.2 and 3. The deceased was in Army working as Havaldar and retired from service on 31.07.2011. At the time of death, the deceased was aged about 48 years and he was receiving pension of Rs. 7,720/-. The claimants claimed compensation of Rs. 75,00,000/-. The Tribunal has, in all, awarded compensation of Rs. 8,39,000/-. Not being satisfied with the award, the claimants have filed the present appeal for enhancement.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondents.

4. As the issue is only with regard to quantum of compensation, we need not go into other factual aspects.

5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal has taken only pension amount for awarding loss of dependency without considering the contention that the deceased had bright future as he was only of 48 years of age and he had acquired qualification with regard to Computer Hardware, networking and in Cyber Security. It is further contended that he had completed Certificate Course in Financial Accounting. Further he had completed Security Supervisor/Guard Course sponsored by Directorate General Resettlement, Ministry of Defence. The certificates in regard to above courses have been produced as Exs.P8 to P13. Further it is submitted that the deceased retired from service on 31.07.2011 as Havaldar from Army and the accident took place on 14.09.2011 within 45 days from his retirement. It is further contended that with the above Certificate Course, the deceased would have got good job and he would have earned a good salary, that too not less than Rs. 40,000/- to Rs. 45,000/- per month.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for interference by this Court.

7. The Tribunal without going into the likelihood of the deceased securing an employment and getting some income, solely relying upon the pension has awarded compensation. Looking to the age of the deceased and the qualification acquired (Exs.P8 to P13), the deceased certainly would have got a job and he would not have certainly remained idle. All this would show that the deceased was capable of earning more than what he was getting as pension. When such probability is evident atleast the notional income is necessary to be reckoned. During the year 2011, normally this Court has taken notional income as Rs. 6,000/- per month. The same notional income would have to be taken for the purpose of arriving at deceased income by adding it to the pension amount.

8. The notional income of Rs. 6,000/- per month and pension of Rs. 7,720/- per month would make total income at Rs. 13,720/- per month. As the deceased was aged about 48 years, the multiplier taken at 13 is correct. If 1/3rd of the total income towards personal expenses is deducted, the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs. 14,26,880/- as against Rs. 8,02,880/- (enhanced by Rs. 6,24,000/-) awarded by the tribunal under the head loss of dependency. Further, the compensation awarded under conventional heads is on lower side and the same is totally enhanced by another sum of Rs. 40,000/-. Hence the claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs. 6,64,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till date of realization.

9. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount with interest within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

10. On de

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

posit, the apportionment and disbursement shall be made in terms of the order of the Tribunal in respect of appellant Nos.1 and 2. As the appellant No.3 as on this date has attained the age of majority, he is entitled for release of 50% of his portion and remaining 50% shall be deposited in his name in any nationalized bank for a period of five years with a liberty to withdraw the interest accrued thereon. 11. With the above modification, the appeal stands disposed of.
O R