AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ravi V. Malimath, J.—The case of the claimants is that on 08.01.2010, at 4.00 a.m., at Chittenahalli Village, Periyapatna Taluk, when the deceased was driving his motor cycle bearing registration No. KA-24-N-234, a lorry bearing registration No. KA-12-4725, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle. As a result, he fell down, sustained injuries and died on the spot. The widow and the minor daughter filed the instant claim petition under Section- 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. During the pendency of the claim petition, the parents of the deceased were impleaded as respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,14,12,000/- along with interest. Questioning the excessive grant of compensation, the insurer has filed MFA No. 5865/2012. Seeking enhancement, the parents have filed MFA No. 2455/2012 and the widow and the minor child have filed MFA Crob. No. 83/2012.
The learned counsel for the insurer contends that the grant of compensation by the Tribunal is far too excessive. That even though he was an employee working with M/s. Hewlett Packard, he was unemployed as on the date of the accident. The income tax returns for the year 2008-09 was to the extent of Rs. 13,43,281/- per annum on which an income tax of Rs. 2,03,604/- is paid. The Tribunal therefore committed an error in holding the notional income on the basis of his income tax return for the period for which he was employed. The admitted fact is that he had resigned the said job and was jobless for 10 months prior to the date of the accident. Therefore, as on the date of the accident he had no income at all. Therefore, to consider his income based on a much earlier period is erroneous.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants contends that he had resigned the job in order to set-up a lucrative business. That he being a Software Engineer, had potential to earn far more than what he was being paid in the company. It is for that reason he resigned the job, intending to set up his own business. Therefore, the notional income should be considered far greater than what he was earning from the previous employment.
On hearing learned counsels, we are of the considered view that appropriate relief requires to be granted.
As on the date of the accident the deceased was jobless. The income tax returns for the assessment year 2009-10 shows that he had gross annual income of Rs. 13,43,281/-. On deducting the income tax and professional tax, the notional income was taken at Rs. 11,37,277/- per annum. He was a Software Engineer by profession. There is no material to show that he was sent out of the company for any other reasons. The claim is that he resigned from the job to set-up a lucrative business. Therefore, there is every possibility that the deceased could have earned a far greater amount than what he was earning in the company. The case made out is that in case he had set up his own business, he could have earned a greater income. However, on the other hand it is a fact that even after 10 months after resigning the job, he had neither set-up any business nor did he have any income. Therefore, balancing the earlier income as shown in the income tax return and the fact that he being a Software Engineer, had a great potential to earn far more than what he was earning, we are of the considered view that it would be appropriate to assess his income in terms of the Income Tax Return for the year 2009-10 notionally in a sum of Rs. 11,37,277/- per annum.
However, keeping in mind the fact that there was always a possibility of assessing the future loss of dependency on the ground that he being a Software Engineer, there would not be any dearth of employment or of earning a higher income and the fact that he was earning the gross salary in terms of the income tax returns and keeping in mind the fact that he was in the process of setting-up his own unit, we are of the considered view that even if the said deduction is to be applied, keeping in mind the notional income held, we are of the view that the same should remain undisturbed.
Therefore, the notional income as held by the Tribunal after granting deduction as well as applying the multiplier, in our considered view would be a just and proper notional income that could be considered. Hence, we have no reason to interfere with the notional income as held by the Tribunal. He was aged 38 years. Hence, the multiplier of ''15'' is appropriate. The Tribunal held a deduction of 1/3rd towards ''personal expenses''. The claimants are the parents, widow and minor child of the deceased. Hence the appropriate deduction should have been 1/4th.
The amounts awarded towards loss of love and affection'', loss of estate, loss of consortium, transportation of dead body and funeral expenses, in our considered view is appropriate and does not call for any enhancement.
The parents have filed MFA No. 2455/2012, seeking appropriate apportionment of the compensation to the father of the deceased. The Tribunal has granted compensation in the name of mother of the deceased and not the father of the deceased. We are of the considered view that the reasoning assigned are appropriate. When the mother has received the compensation on behalf of the father, there is no good ground for granting a separate compensation to the father especially, when both of them are living together. Under these circumstances, the ground urged for separate compensation exclusively for the father is unsustainable. The order on apportionment by the Tribunal is confirmed.
Consequently, the appeals being devoid of merit are dismissed.