Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
ANAND BYRAREDDY
Sesappa poojary - Appellant
Versus
P.K. Karunakara - Respondents
Miscellaneous First Appeal No.1293 of 2006 (MV) C/w Miscellaneous First Appeal No.1453 of 2007 (MV) & Miscellaneous First Appeal No.8823 of 2006 (MV)
Decided On : 07/09/2008
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 - Section 168: [Anand Byrareddy, J] Determination of compensation - Death of boy aged about 13 years in bus accident - Held, Notional income would be about Rs.15,000/- per annum. Taking age of younger of parents, namely, mother as 39 years, appropriate multiplier would be 14. Claimants would be entitled to Rs.1,40,000/- (15,000x 1/3-5,000) (15,000-5000x14) towards loss of dependency. Adding Rs.1 lakh under conventional heads more particularly as mother in no longer capable of bearing any children, total compensation would come to Rs,2,40,000/- with interest payable @ 6% p.a.
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 - Section 168: [Anand Byrareddy, J] Determination of compensation - Death of a minor aged 16 years in accident - He was doing well in School and was actively participating in sports and extra-curricular activities - Child was employed after school hours, as a coolie - Held, Notional income of Rs.24,000/- p.a was rightly taken. As the mother, who was younger of parents, was aged 35, there is no error in Tribunal having applied multiplier of 16. Deduction of one-third by Tribunal towards deemed expenditure is in order. Award of total compensation of Rs.3,25,000/- is proper.
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 - Section 168: [Anand Byraredy, J] Determination of compensation - Deceased, who was aged 5 years at the time of accident belonged to parents aged 26 and 23 respectively-Taking notional income of deceased of minor at Rs.15,000/- per annum and applying multiplier of 15, Rs.2,25,000/- awarded towards loss of dependency, apart from funeral expenses after deducting1/3rd towards personal expenses, amount of compensation would stand reduced to Rs.1,55,000/- from Rs.2,25,000/-.
(This Miscellaneous First Appeal is field under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act against the Judgment and Award dated 24.03.2006 passed in MVC. No.681/2005 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Members, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – VII, Hospel, awarding a compensation of Rs.2,30,000/- with interest at 6% p.a from the date of petition till realization.)
All these appeals are considered together having regard to the common question of law that are raised.
2(a). In the appeal in MFA. 1293/2006, the appellants are the parents and minor sister of a deceased victim of a motor accident. The father was aged about 48 and the mother was aged 39, at the time of accident. The offending vehicle was a bus, belonging to the second respondent. The deceased was aged about 13 and was studying in the 8th standard. While walking home after school hours, the bus had run over the boy and he died of the injuries. The appellants claimed a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘theTirbunal’ for brevity). To establish that the child was bright and healthy and was doing well in his studies, Certificates issued by the School as regards his grades, extra – curricular and sports activities were produced.
(b) TheTribunal has, upon adjudication, proceeded to award a global compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. The Tribunal in doing so, has relied upon the judgment reported in 2005 ACJ 69 and 2004(4) KCCR 2329. The appellants seek enhancement of compensation. One of the grounds urged is that the mother of deceased child had undergone an operation to prevent further child birth and therefore, she is incapable of having any more children and which aspect has been completely overlooked by the Tribunal.
3.(a) In the appeal in MFA.1453/2007, the appellant is an Insurance Company which was the insurer of a vehicle involved in a motor accident. The parents of a victim, a boy aged about 16 at the time of accident, had claimed compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The same having been granted. The father of the boy was 39 and the mother was 35, at the time of the presentation of the Claim Petition. It transpires that while the deceased child was walking along the road with his friends, he was hit from, behind by the offending vehicle and had succumbed to the injuries that he sustained.
(b) The parents claimed compensation before the Tribunal, on the footing that he was bright and healthy child who was receiving an annual scholarship of Rs.600/- from the first year of his schooling. It was also claimed that he was employed as a coolie after school hours and that he was earning Rs.2,000/- per month. There was material evidence placed on record to establish that the child was in fact, receiving a scholarship and that he had been awarded Certificated of Talent Examination in science for the years 2001, 2002, and 2003 and there were also Certificates to indicate that he had participated in Sports. A witness was also examined to state that he was employing the child after his school hours as a coolie.
(c) The Tribunal had accepted the evidence and has opined that the child had bright prospects in life an he was already earning Rs.2,000/- per month and that within five years, he was capable of earning at least Rs.3,000/- and has proceeded to adopt a notional income of Rs.24,000/- per annum and ‘16’ as the multiplier, in arriving at the total compensation payable as being Rs.3,96,000/-, including the loss towards estate and loss of love and affection at Rs.5,000/- each and funeral expenses at Rs.2,000/-. It is this which is under challenge.
(d) The appellant – Insurance Company has contended that the adoption of the notional income at Rs.3,000/- was without basis. Further that there ought to have been a deduction of 50% of the notional income towards the personal expenses of the deceased. And that the multiplier adopted ought to have been 13 instead of 16,
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
