Mahadevi vs N. Nagendrappa

Ravi V. Malimath, J.—The case of the claimants is that on 08.09.2010, at about 7.15 p.m., at Doddakoppalu Gate on Mysore-Hassan Road, when the deceased was going on his two wheeler bearing registration No. KA-45-H-6703, the driver of the Maruthi car bearing registration No. KA-19-MA-6064, came and dashed against him. He fell down and sustained grievous injuries. He was shifted to K.R. Nagar Government Hospital, and thereafter to B.G.S. Apollo Hospital, Mysore. He was treated as an inpatient for 7 days. Thereafter he was shifted to K.R. Nagar Government Hospital, wherein he died on 14.09.2010. He was a practicing Advocate for more than a decade and was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. Further, he had agricultural lands measuring 3 1/2 acres and earning almost Rs. 50,000/- per annum. He was aged 43 years as on the date of the accident. His wife, children and parents filed a claim petition under Section- 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 8,74,500/- along with interest. Seeking enhancement of the compensation, the claimants have filed this appeal.

The deceased was a practicing Lawyer with more than 10 years of practice. The claimants claimed that he was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. We do not find any reason to disbelieve the same. A Lawyer who has put in 10 years of practice could be reasonably expected to earn that amount. Therefore, the Tribunal was very meager in considering his earning at Rs. 6,000/- per month. He was aged 43 years. The legal profession being a growing profession, it is appropriate to grant 30% towards future prospects in view of the fact that he was a young and upcoming lawyer. Hence, his notional income is assessed as follows:

Rs. 10,000 + Rs. 3,000 (30%) = Rs. 13,000/- p.m.

Exhibit-P21 are the RTC extracts for the lands owned by the deceased. He was the owner of 3 1/2 acres of irrigated land. The claim was that he was earning Rs. 50,000/- per annum. We are of the view that the same appears to be on a higher side. It would be appropriate to hold the income from the agricultural land, they being wet lands, at Rs. 30,000/- per annum. Hence, the notional income is worked out as under:

= Rs. 13,000 x 12 = Rs. 1,56,000 + Rs. 30,000

= Rs. 1,86,000/- per annum

Since there were 5 dependents, 1/4th requires to be deducted towards his personal expenses and as he was aged 43 years, the appropriate multiplier would be ''14''. Hence, the total loss of dependency is worked out as follows:

Rs. 1,86,000 (less 1/4th) = Rs. 46,500 x 14

Rs. 19,53,000/-

The amount awarded towards medical expenses at Rs. 82,000/- is appropriate and undisturbed. So also the amount awarded towards bike repair charges at Rs. 5,000/-. However, so far as the compensation towards loss of estate, loss of consortium, transportation of dead body and funeral expenses and attendant charges at Rs. 31,500/- is awarded, we are of the considered view that the same is inappropriate and hence, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- is awarded in all on these four conventional heads. Hence, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced by Rs. 13,65,500/- (Rs. 22,40,000/- less Rs. 8,74,500/-) along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of the realisation and shall be paid within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Out of the enhanced compensation, Rs. 2,00,000/- is awarded in favour of the claimant Nos. 4 and 5 together, the parents of the deceased with interest accrued thereon. Rs. 2,00,000/- with interest accrued thereon shall be kept in the names of each of the claimant Nos. 2 and 3, in a fixed deposit until they attain the age of majority. The balance amount shall be paid to the first claimant, out of which 70% shall be kept in fixed deposit for a period of five years.

The appeal is accordingly allowed.