IMPORTANT POINT
While deciding compensation in motor accident cases, the courts should correctly determine the monthly income by resorting to minimum prevailing wages and other incomes like agricultural income. Correct multiplier factor based on age of the deceased should be applied. Loss of love and affection to children and parents should be quantified. Funeral expenses should be added and correct interest should be granted.

JUDGMENT

V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.

Leave granted.

2. The appellants have filed these appeals against the impugned common judgment and order dated 05.06.2013 passed in M.F.A. No. 21286 of 2012 (MV) C/W M.F.A. No. 21290 of 2012 by the High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Dharwad, wherein the High Court has partly allowed the appeals filed by the appellants.

3. The necessary relevant facts are stated hereunder to appreciate the case with a view to ascertain whether the appellants are entitled to the relief of enhancement of compensation as prayed in these appeals.

On 22.03.2011, the deceased Kallappa Gunavant Kadolkar, and his cousin Vijay Kadolkar (both aged about 33 years) were returning from Shinnoli village towards their village Kangrali BK on their motor-bike bearing registration no.KA-22-W-9244, when the MSRTC bus, bearing registration no.MH-14-BT-1541, came from the opposite direction and collided with their motor cycle, resulting in the death of both the deceased.

4. On filing the M.V.C. Nos.1991/2011 and 1582/2011 by the claimants before the Fast Track Court-III & Additional M.A.C.T., Belgaum, the Tribunal, by its common judgment and order dated 06.02.2012, awarded compensation amounting to Rs.7,68,000/-and Rs.7,88,000/- respectively, with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. by taking the monthly income of both the deceased at Rs.4,500/-p.m. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants filed the appeals before the High Court. The High Court party allowed the appeals of the appellants by re-assessing the monthly income of both the deceased at Rs.6000/-p.m. and it deducted 1/4th of the income towards personal expenses (as per Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009)6 SCC 121). The multiplier of 16 was taken to compute the compensation as both the deceased were aged about 33 years and awarded the compensation of Rs.9,09,000/- each, in both the cases to the claimants, with 8% interest p.a. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the High Court to them, these appeals are filed by the appellants before this Court.

5. Mr. Nitin S. Tambwekar, the learned counsel on behalf of the appellants contended that the appellants in M.F.A. No. 21286/2012, are the wife, minor child and parents of the deceased Kallappa Kadolkar and the appellants in M.F.A. No. 21290/2012 are the wife, 3 minor children and the mother of the deceased Vijay Kadolkar. Both the deceased were aged about 33 years and were skilled workers as they have been working as carpenters. It has been further contended that the deceased were the only earning members of their families and both were hale and healthy prior to the accident that occurred on 22.03.2011 and that both the Tribunal and the High Court have erred in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/-p.m. and Rs.6000/-p.m. respectively, as against Rs.15,000/-p.m. as claimed by the appellants. It has been further contended by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellants that both the Tribunal and Appellate Court have not considered the age of both the deceased and also the fact that they were spending all their income in the welfare of their family members. Hence, it is contended by the learned counsel that the quantum of compensation awarded by the courts below is not just and reasonable and therefore the same is required to be enhanced on the basis of the legal evidence on record and the law laid down by this Court in a catena of cases laying down the guiding principles for taking the monthly income of the deceased for computation and award of just and reasonable compensation in the absence of documentary evidence on record.

6. On the other hand, it is the contention of Mr. R.S. Hegde, the learned counsel on behalf of the respondent-Corporation that the Tribunal and the High Court, after critically evaluating the evidence on record have awarded the just and reasonable compen