AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ravi V. Malimath, J.—The case of the claimant is that on 30-3-2012 at about 11.45 pm., when the deceased M.T. Nagarajappa was riding his motorcycle bearing registration No. KA-26 K-5292 on NH-4 near Vidyanagar main road cross, a Bolero jeep bearing registration No. KA-01 MH-6925 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased. The deceased sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. His wife and two children filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation. The tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 27,11,076/- with interest/at the rate of 6% p.a.
Questioning the award of excess compensation, the insurer has filed MFA No. 1561 of 2014 and seeking enhancement of the compensation, the claimants have filed MFA No. 603 of 2014.
Learned counsel for the insurer contends that the finding of the tribunal that the driver of the Bolero jeep was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident, is incorrect. That the Bolero jeep was moving on NH-4 and the deceased intended to take a right turn from the side road. The deceased, who was riding a two-wheeler on a national highway, should have been more careful and should have allowed the Bolero jeep to pass. Having not done so and having intended to cross the national highway, the accident occurred.
On consideration of the contentions, we are of the considered view that there is no error committed by the tribunal in fixing the negligence on the driver of the Bolero jeep. The driver of the Bolero jeep, who was driving on the national highway, should also have been careful on seeing the turning of the two wheeler of the deceased. We, therefore, do not find any circumstance to blame the rider of the two wheeler in causing the accident. Having considered the spot sketch in terms of Ex. R4 and inquest mahazar in terms of Ex. P5, we hold that the finding of the tribunal in regard to negligence is correct. Further, the driver of the Bolero jeep, who would have been the best witness to state about the manner in which the accident occurred, has not been examined. Apart from this, the charge sheet is filed against the driver of the Bolero jeep. Hence we have no hesitation to hold that the driver of the Bolero jeep is responsible for causing the accident. Hence, the contention of the insurer is unacceptable.
In so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the deceased was getting a total income of Rs. 30,689/-. On deducting the professional tax and income tax, the tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 29,614/- per month and after deducting one-third thereof, the loss of dependency was arrived at Rs. 19,743/-. We are of the considered view the same is inappropriate. On granting deduction towards professional tax and income tax, the net income could be taken at Rs. 30,000/- per month. One-third of this amount should be deducted towards personal expenditure of the deceased and thus the loss of dependency would be Rs. 20,000/- per month. Since the deceased was 54 years of age at the time of accident, the tribunal committed an error in applying the multiplier of 11 in arriving at the loss of dependency. We are of the considered view that even though the multiplier adopted at 11 is appropriate, in view of the advanced age of the deceased, a split multiplier should have been applied i.e., the multiplier of 6 in respect of the remaining years of service of the deceased and 5 after his retirement. Thus, the loss of dependency for six years would be Rs. 20,000 x 12 x 6 = 14,40,000/-. After the retirement, the income of the deceased should be taken at Rs. 10,000/- per month and adopting the multiplier of 5, the loss of dependency would be Rs. 10,000 x 12 x 5 = 6,00,000/-. Therefore, in all, the claimants are entitled to Rs. 20,40,000/- (Rs. 14,40,000 + Rs. 6,00,000) towards loss of dependency. In addition, they are entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection, loss of expectation of life, loss of consortium and transportation of dead body and funeral and obsequies ceremonies. Hence, the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 22,40,000/-. In all other respects, the judgment and award of the tribunal is left undisturbed.
The registry is directed to transmit the amount in deposit before this court, if any, and the records to the tribunal forthwith.