AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Subhash B. Adi, J.—Sri Srikanta Rao, learned counsel is directed to take notice for respondents in MFA No. 3933/2011. The delay of 66 days is condoned in MFA No. 9407/2010 and the application - Misc. Cvl. 19483/2010 is accordingly allowed.
Both the appeals are directed against the judgment and award passed in MVC No. 47/2009 dated 22-2-2010 on the file of Motor Accident. Claims Tribunal, Bangalore. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 10,47.000/ with interest. Questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Insurer has filed MFA No. 9407/2010 whereas, seeking enhancement of compensation, claimants have filed MFA No. 3933/2011.
Heard both the counsel. The claimants are the husband and children of the deceased. The deceased died in a road accident on 12-10-2008. She was the proprietrix of M/s. Maruthi Glass & Plywoods. Exs.P-11 and 12 are the certificates of registration. She was an independent assessee of income tax. She had filed returns as per Exs. P-16 & 18 for the period 2008-09 & 2009-10 and her income was shown as Rs. 1,71.600/- and Rs. 1,00,517/- respectively. Her average income was about Rs. 1 lakh as per Ex.P-16 & P-18. The Tribunal, having taken her income at Rs. 1.70,000/-, giving J/3 deduction treating the annual income at Rs. l, 13,000/-, has calculated the loss of dependency at Rs. 10,17,000/- and in all. it awarded compensation of Rs. 10,47. 000/-.
The learned counsel for the insurer submitted that the claimant-son of the deceased has admitted that he has continued the business and there is no loss of income nor there is any loss of dependency as both husband and son are in business and the son being major, is not dependent, and even the husband has got a separate business of Glass Design and hence the Tribunal was not justified in awarding loss of dependency.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the claimant submits that deceased was an independent assessee and it is only because of her input the business was running in profit. The Tribunal has not applied proper multiplier of 13 and has also taken the income at lower side. He relied oh the judgment of the Apex Court reported in Rani Gupta and Others Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, in the matter of RANI GUPTA & OTHERS vs UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD and submitted that in case of death of a wife, her labors input in the business is taken as 2/3rd- by giving l/3ld deduction, the Supreme Court has calculated the loss of dependency.
Nodoubt the children are major and they might have continued the business but it cannot also be ignored that the deceased herself was running the business and her labors input in maintaining the business and earning the income cannot be ignored and though much of her income was contributed to the family, however, the Tribunal has taken the reasonable income and it could have given 50% deduction and calculated the contribution by treating that 50% would have been available to the family. However, multiplier is also wrongly applied. Taking into consideration the over all circumstances, I find that compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of loss of dependency appears to be reasonable. However, on the conventional Heads only Rs. 30,000/- is awarded. When the husband and children have lost not only the wife/mother but Entrepreneurs of the family is also lost. In such circumstances, another sum of Rs. 40,000/- can be awarded under the conventional heads. Accordingly, the claimants appeal - MFA No. 3933/2011 is partly allowed. The claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 40.000/- over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The appeal filed by the insurer - MFA No. 9407/2010 is dismissed. Consequently, Misc. Cvl. No. 11552 /2011 is also dismissed. The amount in deposit should be transferred to the Tribunal.