Smt. Mukta Prashant Suryavanshi vs Ravindra Basavaraj Gunalli

G. Narendar, J.—Heard learned counsel for the appellant/claimant in M F.A. No. 20214/ 2013 and learned counsel for the appellant/insurer in M.F.A. No. 20453 of 2013.

Learned counsel for the parties pray that the appeals be taken up for consideration and dispose of in the light of the disposal of an appeal by the Division Bench under similar circumstances. Though the appeals are listed for hearing on interlocutory application, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, they are taken up for final disposal.

The brief facts of the case are that one Prashanth was travelling in a Maruti Omni car bearing Reg. No. KA-38/M-1633, driven by one Prakash Banathe from Humanabad to Mailur. That the said Prakash was driving the vehicle in a high speed and on account of the high speed, he lost control over the vehicle and crushed to the lorry bearing Reg. No. MH-24/F-682 near a Silk Factory on Humanabad-Noubad Road, which was parked on the right side of the road. On account of the said accident, both Prashant and Praksh succumbed to the injuries on the spot. That the said Prashant was aged about 36 years and was employed as Serving Engineer in Videocon DTH Company, Vidhyanagar, Hubli. He was drawing a salary of Rs. 15,000.00/- p.m. The 1st claimant is the wife and the 2nd claimant is the minor daughter and the 3rd claimant is the mother. That he was the only earning member or the family and that they have lost the strength and support of sustenance.

Upon notice, the insurer has entered appearance. The insurer contended that the deceased Prashanth was travelling as an unauthorized fare paying passenger and thereby constituting violation of the policy conditions and therefore prayed that the insurer be absolved of the liability. It was also contended that the compensation sought for is highly exorbitant.

On the said contentions, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

Whether the petitioners prove that on 8.7.2010 at about 11.30 p.m. when the deceased Prashant, s/o. Balakrishna Suryavanshi was travelling in Maruti Omni LMV vehicle bearing Reg. No. KA-38/M-1633 along with Prakash Banthe from Humanabad to Mailur, the driver of the said vehicle i.e., Prakash Banthe drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, when they came near bilk factory on Noubad Kolur on Humanabad-Noubad Road, the driver of Omni lost control over the vehicle and dashed to the parked lorry bearing Reg. No. MH-24/F-682 and caused accident. Due to this, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries.

Whether the petitioners prove that they are entitled for the compensation? If so, what amount and from whom?

What order or award?

The parties have gone to trial on the said issues. P.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the claimants and Exs. P1 to 11 were got marked in support of the case of the claimants. R.W.1 was examined on behalf of respondent/insurer and the insurance policy-Ex. R1 was got marked on behalf of the respondent/insurer.

The Tribunal after examining and appreciating the evidence on record has taken the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 14,000.00/- and has deducted ⅓rd thereupon and has arrived at the net income of Rs. 9,300.00/- p.m. and has adopted the multiplier as �15� and was pleased to award a sum of Rs. 16.74.000.00/- towards loss of dependency, a sum of Rs. 10,000.00/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 10,000.00/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs. 10,000.00/- towards loss to the estate and another sum of Rs. 10,000.00/- towards the transport and funeral expenses. In all the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 17.147.000.00/-.

It is contended by the claimants/appellants before this Court that the Tribunal failed to grant any sum under the head of future prospects and in view of the law laid-down by the Hon�ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others, reported in 2013 ACJ 1403, addition 50% of the income derived as future prospectus.

Per contra, learned counsel for the insurer, who is the appellant in the connected appeal contends that the Tribunal has seriously erred in including the sums paid to the employee under the head of incentive and conveyance and he would submit that the said sum constituting almost 50% of the salary. Hence, the derivation of the monthly income by the Tribunal is erroneous and legally impermissible and he would submit that the sums awarded under the head of incentive and conveyance ought to have been deducted before arriving at the month salary of the deceased-Prashanat.

The contention on behalf of learned counsel for the claimants/appellants is that as per the law laid-down by the Hon�ble Apex Court, the Tribunal ought to have granted future prospects at the rate of 50% of the income and not added the said sum to the monthly income derived by the Tribunal after allowing deductions. The contention that the incentive and conveyance cannot be taken as part of the income is also not without basis.

Be that as it may, it is seen that the contention of the insurer is that the said sum has to be deducted and the income has to be derived and thereafter 50% is to be added including the same. The sum that would be derived as monthly income would be including the incentive and the sum that has been calculated by the Tribunal and the difference only could be very marginal. Hence, this Court does not find any good, ground which would warrant interference with the sum awarded as compensation by the Tribunal under the head of loss of dependency and future income.

Even if it is held that the calculation is erroneous, the loss occurred to the insurer is compensation by non-awarding of amount under the head of future prospects. That apart, it is seen that the Tribunal has awarded a meagre sum under conventional heads. Hence, in the fact and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the sum awarded by the Tribunal as compensation represents a fair, just and reasonable amount and does not call for any interference. In the circumstances, both the appeals are rejected.

The amount in deposit be transmitted to the Tribunal along with the records.