AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mrs. S. Sujatha, J. - The insurer as well as the claimants are before this Court challenging the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gulbarga in MVC No. 753/2009.
Briefly stated the facts are:
that on 05-05-2008 at about 2.00 p.m. when the deceased Shivamma was travelling in the Maxicab bearing registration No. KA-32/5995 and when the said Maxicab came near ABL Sports Ground, Bhankur - Shahabad road, it appears the driver of the truck bearing registration No. KA-32/3338 came driving the same from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the said Maxicab and caused the accident. On account of the said accident, said Shivamma sustained severe injuries and died at the spot. On the claim petition filed by the claimants, seeking compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Tribunal has awarded the compensation at Rs. 6,24,736/- with interest at 6% per annum thereon. Being aggrieved, the insurer is before this Court mainly challenging the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards future prospects at 30%.
It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the insurer that the Tribunal has awarded the exorbitant compensation under the different heads. The learned counsel placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shashikala and others v. Gangalakshmamma and another (2015) 9 Supreme Court Cases 150] contends that as the addition of compensation towards the future prospects in case of self-employed or of fixed wages is pending before the larger Bench of the Apex Court and as such, the Tribunal ought not have awarded the future prospects at 30% towards the annual income.
Per contra, the learned counsel appealing for the claimants fairly submits that he is not insisting for future prospects at 30% added towards annual income of the deceased. Giving up this compensation under the head of future prospects, the learned counsel invites my attention to the compensation awarded under the different heads. He also points out that the Tribunal has determined the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 4,000/- whereas, in the identical cases this Court is adopting monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 5,000/- in the road traffic accident that occurred in the year 2008. It is also contended that the Tribunal has awarded inadequate compensation under the different heads.
Heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
Though, the insurer is in appeal mainly challenging the compensation awarded at 30% towards future prospects, the claimants having given up this compensation there is no necessity for this Court to enter into the arena of binding nature of the precedents. Accordingly, this Court has to examine the compensation awarded under the different heads. It is noticed that the deceased was aged 55 and the first claimant was aged 48 at the time of the accident. The Tribunal has notionally fixed the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,000/- per month. Whereas, in the identical cases in the absence of substantial evidence to prove the income of the injured/deceased of the road traffic accident in the year 2008 this Court is adopting the monthly income at Rs. 5,000/-, applying the same and deducting ⅓rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, the loss of dependency would work out to Rs. 5,19,948/-.
Considering the age, avocation and the loss to the family members of the deceased, the compensation awarded under the different heads is modified as under :
Loss of consortium Rs. 50,000/-
Loss of love and affection Rs. 25,000/-
Loss of estate Rs. 20,000/-
Loss of funeral and Transportation charges Rs. 25,000/-
Loss of dependency Rs. 5,19,948/-
Total Rs. 6,39,948/-
Accordingly, the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified and enhanced to Rs. 6,39,948/-.
The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of realization.
The Registry is directed to release the amount in deposit to the claimants forthwith.
Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed and the appeal filed by the claimants is allowed as indicated above.