AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sl. No.,Headings,Amount Rs.
1,Loss of dependency,"14,18,000
2,Transportation of dead body and for performance of obsequies ceremonies,"25,000
3,Loss of Consortium,"25,000
4,Loss of love and affection,"25,000
5,Loss of estate,"17,000
,Total,"15,10,000
(viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.",,
15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three",,
years.,,
In the case on hand, it was claimed that the deceased was working as Tailor and he was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month and the",,
Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.7000/- per month. There was no documentary evidence let in by the claimants to establish the,,
said income. In the absence of any documentary proof and in view of the law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the judgment cited supra,",,
the Tribunal was not justified in adding 50% to the said income towards future prospectus to assess the compensation payable towards ''loss of,,
dependency''. However, having regard to the fact that the accident was of the year 2014 and the deceased Shivanna was a Tailor by profession",,
and he was aged 38 years at the time of accident, as could be seen from Ex.P.7, this Court is of the considered view that it would be just and",,
reasonable to assess the income of the deceased at Rs.9000/- per month, as against Rs.7,000/- assessed by the Tribunal to determine the",,
compensation payable towards ''loss of dependency''. Thus, the compensation payable to the claimants towards ''loss of dependency'' would",,
comes to Rs.9000-2250 (1/4) =6750x12x15=12,15,000) as against Rs.14,18,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.",,
Now its takes me to the next question as to whether the Tribunal was justified in awarding compensation of Rs.92,000/- under conventional",,
heads viz., towards ''transportation of dead body/funeral expenses'', ''loss of consortium'', ''loss of love and affection'' and ''loss of estate''. In view",,
of the law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court in paragraph 61 (viii) of Pranay Sethi''s case, the maximum/total compensation payable under",,
conventional heads would be restricted to Rs.70,000/-. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal was not justified in awarding",,
compensation of Rs.92,000/- under conventional heads. Thus, it would be just and proper to award compensation of Rs.70,000/- as against",,
Rs.92,000/-, including the compensation payable towards ''loss of love and affection'' under conventional heads viz., Rs.40,000/- towards ''loss of",,
consortium'' Rs.15,000/- towards ''loss of estate'' and Rs.15,000/- towards ''funeral expenses''. Thus, in all the claimantsappellants herein are",,
entitled to total compensation of Rs.12,85,000/- (Rupees twelve lakhs eighty five thousand only) as against Rs.15,10,000/- awarded by the",,
Tribunal. If 10% of Rs.12,85,000/- is deducted towards contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, the net compensation payable would",,
comes to Rs.11,56,500/- (Rupees eleven lakhs fifty six thousand five hundred only). Thus, the enhanced compensation would comes to",,
Rs.23,500/-.",,
At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant, drawing the attention of the Court to the judgment of the Apex Court in Hem Raj -vs- Oriental",,
Insurance Co. Ltd., and others (2018 ACJ-5) submits that at least 40% of the income of the deceased be added towards future prospects as",,
against 50% added by the Tribunal. In the said judgment, the Hon''ble Apex Court has held as here under:",,
We are of the view that there cannot be distinction where there is positive evidence of income and where minimum income is",,
determined on guesswork in the facts and circumstances of a case. Both the situations stand at the same footing. Accordingly, in the",,
present case, addition of 40 percent to the income assessed by the Tribunal is required to be made. The Tribunal made addition of 50",,
percent while the High Court has deleted the same.,,
We modify the impugned order to the effect that the component of future prospects will be 40 percent. Needless to say that,,
corresponding deduction for personal expenses, etc., may have to be made. On that basis, the executing Court may recomputed the",,
entitlement of the appellants"".",,
In that case, in the backdrop that there was a positive evidence of income, the income was determined and 40% has been added towards future",,
prospects. Determination of the income of a person who died in motor accidents would depend upon the facts and circumstances of a case. In the,,
case on hand, there was no such positive evidence in proof of income of the deceased. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the above",,
judgment relied on by the counsel for the appellant cannot be made applicable to the present case.,,
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. In modification of the impugned Judgment and award dated 05.08.2015, passed by the Judge, Court",,
Small Causes and XXVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court (SCCH-09) and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, in",,
M.V.C.,,
No.3391/2014, the total compensation payable to the claimants is enhanced from Rs.11,33,000/- to Rs.11,56,500/- (Rupees eleven lakh fifty six",,
thousand five hundred only). The enhanced compensation comes to Rs.23,500/- (Rupees twenty three thousand five hundred only). The",,
insurerrespondent No.2 herein shall deposit the entire compensation amount with accrued interest, before the concerned Tribunal within three",,
months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Judgment. However, the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal, insofar as it",,
relates to the rate of interest and apportionment and deposit is concerned, shall remain un-altered.",,
There shall be no order as to the costs. Office to draw the decree accordingly. Office is directed to transmit the lower Court records forthwith.,,