AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.N. Keshavanarayana, J.—Though the appeal is listed today for orders, by consent of the learned counsel appearing on both sides, the matter is heard for disposal. The only grievance sought to be made out in this appeal by the insurer is that the Tribunal has committed serious error in reckoning the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 4,500/- and deducting only 1/3rd of the monthly income of the deceased towards living and personal expenses and in awarding interest at the rate of 8% pa.
The learned counsel for the appellant-insurer vehemently contended that the Tribunal having held that the claimants have not proved the contention that the deceased was working as Supervisor in a society, has committed error in reckoning the monthly income at Rs. 4,500/-. In this regard, the submission of the learned counsel is that since the accident occurred in the year 2010, and by considering the deceased as a coolie worker his monthly income ought to have been reckoned only at Rs. 3,000/- and not Rs. 4,500/-.
She further contended that since the claimants 2 and 3, who are the major sons, were not dependent on the deceased, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased ought to have been 50% of the monthly income as the only other dependent was his wife. In this regard she places reliance on a decision of Single Bench of this Court in North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Sri D. Kenchappa and Others, . She further contended that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 8% p.a. is highly exorbitant and contrary to various decisions of the superior Courts in which normally interest is awarded at 6% pa.
The learned counsel appearing for the respondents-claimants sought to justify the award and sought for dismissal of the appeal.
I have bestowed my serious considerations to the submissions made on both sides. No doubt, as observed by the Tribunal, the claimants have failed to place any acceptable evidence to substantiate their contention that the deceased was working as a Supervisor in a Society and earning Rs. 9,000/- p.m. Nevertheless, the Tribunal having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, has taken notional income at Rs. 4,500/-. In this regard, the Tribunal has placed reliance on the principles laid down in the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sri Ramachandrappa Vs. The Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, .
Having regard to the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision wherein the Apex Court while considering the case of accident occurring in the year 2004 has held that the wage of the labourer during that period was between Rs. 100/- and Rs. 150/- per day. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the Tribunal has not committed any error in reckoning the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 4,500/-. Therefore, the monthly income reckoned by the Tribunal cannot by any stretch of imagination be termed as on the higher side. In view of the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2010 and keeping in mind the cost of living as also the rupee value in the year 2010, no error can be found with the finding recorded by the Tribunal.
The next ground urged is with regard to the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. As noticed supra, the Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd of the monthly income of the deceased towards his personal and living expenses. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the deduction should have been 50% on the ground that two of the claimants are major sons and earning independently, while the only dependent on the deceased was the wife-claimant No. 1. The Tribunal while deducting 1/3rd only towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased, has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of K.R. Madasudhan v. Administrative Officer reported in 2011 KAR MAC 371.
No doubt the claimants 2 and 3 are major sons of the deceased and they are shown to be coolie workers. Nevertheless, claimant No. 1 is the wife, who was entirely depended on the income of the deceased. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the Tribunal is justified in deducting 1/3rd income of the deceased towards personal and living expenses, as such, no fault can be found with the finding recorded. In D. Kenchappa''s case referred to supra, the court has considered the case of claimants who are all major sons of the deceased and therefore the savings of deceased is taken at 25%. The said decision is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. Therefore, I find no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. The last contention is with regard to award of interest at 8% pa. No doubt, in majority of the cases, interest awarded is 6% pa. However, there is no straight jacket formula in setting out percentage of interest to be awarded. The award of interest depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The Tribunal, in the case on hand, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, awarded interest at the rate of 8% pa. Therefore, I find no grounds to interfere with the said award. In that view of the matter, I find no substance in any of the contentions urged. Therefore, the appeal is devoid of merit. Hence, appeal is dismissed.
The amount in deposit is directed to be transmitted to the Tribunal concerned.