IMPORTANT POINTS
When a vehicle takes a turn without signal and causes a collision with vehicle coming from behind, driver of the latter vehicle cannot be slapped with contributory negligence.
While determining compensation under MV Act, age of the deceased, his gross income and not net income and other factors are to be considered. Interest should be awarded @ 9%.

JUDGMENT

V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned judgment and order dated 05.06.2013 passed in M.F.A. No. 21576 of 2012 by the High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Dharwad, wherein the High Court has partly allowed the appeal filed by the appellants.

2. The necessary relevant facts are stated hereunder to appreciate the case with a view to ascertain whether the appellants are entitled for relief as prayed in this appeal. On 20.5.2011, the deceased Gavisiddappa was proceeding on a motor cycle bearing registration No.KA034/K-3530 towards S.P. Circle, when the State Road Transport Corporation bus which was going ahead of him took a right turn to enter the bus depot without giving the right turn indication. The motor cycle of Gavisiddappa collided with the bus while the bus was taking a right turn. Due to the impact caused by this collision of the bus with the motorcycle, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to the same while on the way to the hospital.

3. At the time of the accident, the deceased was working as an ASI in the Kudithini Police Station and was drawing a salary of Rs. 26,000/- per month. The deceased was the only earning member of the family for their livelihood.

4. The appellants herein, the wife, 3 minor children and the mother of the deceased Gavisiddappa, filed a Claim Petition against the respondents before the MACT-XII, Bellary, vide MVC No.685 of 2011. The Tribunal calculated the compensation amount under all heads at Rs.21,30,632/-. The Tribunal also apportioned the contributory negligence at 25% on the part of the deceased and 75% on the driver of the respondent-Corporation. Thus, after 25% deduction from the amount of the total compensation, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.15,97,974/-payable by the respondents to the appellants vide order dated 29.12.2011.

5. Being aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the appellants filed an M.F.A. No.21576 of 2012 on 05.04.2012 before the High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Dharwad. After considering the facts, evidence on record and circumstances of the case, the High Court was of the view that the net income of the deceased at the time of his death was Rs.21,168/-per month. As the claimants were 5 in number, the High Court held that Rs.5292/- i.e. 1/4th of the income had to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased (as per Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009)6 SCC 121). Therefore, the remaining amount comes to Rs.15,876/-per month. The High Court applied the multiplier of 11 and re determined the loss of dependency of the appellants at Rs.20,95,632/-as the age of the deceased at the time of his death was 53 years. It further awarded a sum of Rs.45,000/-towards conventional heads i.e. loss of consortium, loss of estate, loss of love and affection, and transportation of the dead body. Thus, the total compensation amount was determined by the High Court at Rs.21,40,632/-. The High Court has affirmed the apportionment of contributory negligence as determined by the Tribunal and accordingly, deducted 25% from the above compensation. A final amount of Rs.16,05,474/-was awarded to the appellants by the High Court as against Rs.15,97,974/-awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, the High Court partly allowed the appeal by enhancing the compensation by a sum of Rs.7,500/-.

6. Aggrieved by the above impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Dharwad, the appellants preferred an appeal before this Court for setting aside the same and for enhancement of compensation by awarding just and reasonable compensation.

7. Mr. C.B. Gururaj, the learned counsel for the appellants contended that the judgment of this court in Juju Kuruvila & Ors. v. Kunjujamma Mohan & Ors. (2013)9 SCC 166 is applicable to the facts of the present case. In the above case, Joy Kuruvila (the deceased) had a head-on collision with a bus approaching from the oppos