AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging Judgment and Order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udupi, [the ''Tribunal'', for short] in MVC No.955/2015.
Briefly stated the facts are:
That the claimants are parents of the deceased Ganesh Kundar who died in the road traffic accident which occurred on 9.8.2015 owing to the actionable negligence of the driver of the bus bearing registration No.KA-47- 5821, insured with the appellant-Insurer. On issuance of process, the insurance company appeared and refuted the claim. The Tribunal extensively analyzing the evidence on record, awarded total compensation of Rs.13,62,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of actual deposit, fastening the liability on the insurer to indemnify the insured. Aggrieved by the same, the insurance company is in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation as being excessive.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the Tribunal grossly erred in adding 50% of the income determined towards future prospects. Learned Counsel further submitted that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal considering the age of the deceased is not justifiable which ought to have been the age of the younger parent.
I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the material on record.
The factum of the accident and death of the victim in the road traffic accident is not in dispute. The deceased was aged about 23 at the time of the accident and was working as Lab Technician at Denta Experts Dental Lab at Karwar. It was contended by the claimants that he was drawing salary of Rs.16,000/- per month besides the other benefits. But, in the absence of concrete evidence placed on record to prove the same, the Tribunal determined the monthly income at Rs.8,000/- and added 50% of the income towards the future prospects. Addition of 50% towards future prospects is the main grievance of the insurer.
Assuming that the income of the deceased cannot be assessed, adding 50% of the future prospects, the monthly income determined at Rs.12,000/- to a person aged about 23 working as Lab Technician cannot be considered as excessive. It is just and proper. Thus, without going into the merits or demerits of the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing for the appellant, in as much as, the issue of future prospects, it can be held without any hesitation that the income of the deceased determined at Rs.12,000/- per month is justifiable. Even if we go by the strict mode of determination adopted by this Court in identical circumstances, the difference of total compensation would be substantially marginal/nil. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the different heads is also meager. Considering the totality of the circumstances of the case, the total compensation of Rs.13,62,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of actual deposit cannot be considered as excessive at any stretch of imagination.
The appeal stands dismissed as devoid of merits. All the pending applications are consigned to file.
The amount in deposit shall be transferred to the jurisdictional Tribunal for disbursement.