The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to consider future prospects in the calculation of compensation in motor accident claims.

ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. Aggrieved both by the quantum of compensation determined by the High Court and the finding recorded by the Tribunal and confirmed by the High Court that the driver of the car in which the deceased was travelling was also guilty of contributory negligence and that therefore the claimants are entitled only to 50% of the amount of compensation as determined, the claimants in a motor accident claim have come up with the above appeal.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

4. On 10.02.2011, the car in which the husband of the 1st appellant (and the father of the appellant nos. 2 and 3) was travelling, dashed against a lorry that was going in front, when the driver of the lorry allegedly stopped it all of a sudden without any signal or indicator. The victim suffered serious injuries and died on the spot.

5. Claiming that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the lorry, the appellants filed a claim before the Tribunal, seeking compensation in a sum of Rs. 54,10,000/-.

6. According to the appellants, the victim was 32 years of age at the time of the accident and that he was employed as a Senior Design Engineer in a company earning a sum of Rs. 45,000/- per month with bright future prospects.

7. On the issue relating to the cause of the accident, the Tribunal came to the conclusion on perusal of the police records, including the complaint, spot sketch etc., that the lorry into which the car collided, had been parked without putting any indicator or signal on NH-4. But at the same time the Tribunal concluded, on the basis of the final report filed by the police against the drivers of the lorry as well as the car, that the driver of the car was also equally negligent. Therefore, the Tribunal first held that the accident occurred due to the contributory negligence on the part of the drivers of both vehicles and fixed 50% as the factor of contribution.

8. On the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal arrived at the annual income of the deceased as Rs. 2,78,700/- after excluding certain special allowances. After adding 10% to the said income on the ground that the deceased had a bright future, the Tribunal fixed the loss of annual income at Rs. 3,09,900/-. From the said amount, the Tribunal deducted one-third and applied a multiplier of 16 on the balance annual income of Rs. 2,06,600/-. The amount so arrived at by the Tribunal was Rs. 33,05,600/- to which the Tribunal added a sum of Rs. 10,000/- each towards loss of consortium, love and affection and expectation of love. The Tribunal added Rs. 5000/- each for the transportation of the body and for funeral expenses and arrived at a total amount of Rs. 33,45,600/-. Since the Tribunal held the driver of the car equally negligent contributing to the accident, the Tribunal divided the aforesaid amount by two and awarded a compensation of Rs. 16,72,800/-. On the said amount, interest was directed to be paid at 6% per annum.

9. The Insurance Company did not challenge the award. But the claimants filed an appeal before the High Court of Karnataka. By the judgment impugned in this appeal the High Court upheld the finding of the Tribunal relating to contributory negligence. On the quantum of compensation, the High Court took the gross annual income for the assessment year 2009-10, which was Rs. 3,36,427/-. After deducting income tax of Rs. 32,368/- from the said amount, the High Court arrived at the net income as Rs. 3,04,060/-. From the said amount the Tribunal deducted one-third towards personal expenses and arrived at the income available for the family as Rs. 2,02,707/-. After applying the multiplier of 16, the High Court re-determined the loss of dependency at Rs. 32,43,312/-. To this amount, the High Court added Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 75,000/- towards loss of love and affection and R