AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Subhash B. Adi
These two appeals are directed against the judgment and award in M.V.C. Nos. 4 and 5/2006 dated 22.3.2007 on the file of Addl. M.A.C.T., Hiriyur whereas, Cross-objection is filed by the claimants against the judgment and award in M.V.C. No. 4/2006.
Appeals are by the insurer, questioning the quantum of compensation whereas, cross-objection is filed for enhancement of compensation.
The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 5,65,000/- and Rs. 3,29,000/- with interest respectively.
The facts, which are not in dispute are that, the deceased in M.V.C. Nos. 4 and 5/2006 were husband and wife. Both the husband wife and their minor children died in the accident. The claimants are parents and in-laws of the deceased. It is also not in dispute that the deceased in M.V.C. No. 4/2006 was a practicing Advocate and it is on record that, he had put in practice of 12 years. He was also in the panel of Insurance Company and had a good private practice also. In M.V.C. No. 4/2006, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs. 10,000/- per month and after giving deduction of 50% has calculated the loss of dependency at Rs. 5,40,000/- and in case of deceased in M.V.C. No. 5/2006, Rs. 3,000/- income is taken and Rs. 3,29,000/- has been awarded.
Learned Counsel for the insurer submitted that, the income of the deceased in M.V.C. No. 4/2006 taken is on the higher side. This is contrary to the income tax returns. income tax returns is only for Rs. 53,000/- and also submitted that, in case of deceased in M.V.C. No. 5/2006, no deduction is given.
On the other hand, learned Counsel for the claimant submitted that, the deceased in M.V.C. No. 4/2006 was an Advocate, had a good practice, may be, income tax might not have been declared, but his income is not disputed, may be many deductions are given. He also submitted that, considering the number of years of practice put in by the deceased, reasonable income should have been taken.
A practicing Advocate, who had put in 12 years practice at the Bar, cannot be said that he had no future and in the present days, in each case, Counsel are charging fees in thousands. Having regard to the same and having regard to the future earning for the family, the income taken by the Tribunal, in my opinion, is not on the higher side and rightly 50% has been deducted. I find that, as far as compensation awarded in M.V.C. No. 4/2006 is concerned, the compensation towards loss of dependency has been reasonably awarded, however, on the conventional heads, the compensation awarded is on the lower side. It cannot also be ignored that the great agony and pain that the parents have suffered losing son, daughter-in-law and grand children in accident, It is very unfortunate for the family and their pain and love and affection, if it is considered, in my opinion, another Rs. 40,000/- could be awarded on this head.
In so far as deceased in M.V.C. No. 5/2006 is concerned, her contribution to the family is properly assessed, however, there is no deduction given towards her personal expenditure. In my opinion, being a woman, she might not have spent 50% of the income, giving 1/3rd deduction, compensation can be determined. Claimants are entitled for Rs. 2,16,000/- (Rs. 2,000/-x12x9) as against Rs. 3,24,000/- i.e. compensation is reduced by Rs. 1,08,000/- towards loss of dependency. However, towards funeral expenditure, claimants are entitled for additional Rs. 40,000/-. Compensation is reduced by Rs. 68,000/-.
Accordingly, M.F.A. No. 7091/2007 is dismissed. M.F.A. No. 7092/2007 is partly allowed. Claimants in M.V.C. No. 5/2006 are entitled for Rs. 2,61,000/- with interest as against Rs. 3,29,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Cross Objection No. 290/2008 is allowed in part. Compensation is enhanced by another Rs. 40,000/- over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal with interest.
The amount in deposit be transferred to the Tribunal.