Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 104
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
K.N. Phaneendra, Pradeep Singh Yerur, JJ.
Shri Mallikarjun S/o Yallappa Jogannavar and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Shri Umesh M. S/o Murthy K. and Ors. – Respondents
M.F.A. No.104894 of 2019 (MV) & M.F.A. No.103864 of 2018 (MV)
Decided On : 28-02-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Sri. Sanjay S. Katageri, Advocate
For the Respondent:Sri. Ravindra R. Mane, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of principles laid down by various decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in determining the compensation for loss of dependency in a motor vehicle accident case.
Headnote:
Dependency - Motor Vehicle Accident - Karnataka Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 163A, Section 166 - The court discussed the assessment of loss of dependency, future prospects, and the applicability of multiplier in the context of the deceased's income and age. It highlighted the principles laid down by various decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court and their application in determining the compensation. The court also addressed the conventional heads of compensation and the rate of interest, ultimately awarding a total compensation of Rs.38,57,000 along with interest at 8% per annum.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased met with a fatal accident in a motor vehicle collision, leading to a claim for compensation by the dependents. The claimants sought enhancement of compensation, particularly with reference to loss of dependency by the Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the assessment of loss of dependency, future prospects, and the applicability of multiplier, ultimately awarding a total compensation of Rs.38,57,000 along with interest at 8% per annum. It also addressed the conventional heads of compensation and the rate of interest, maintaining the interest awarded by the Tribunal.
Issues: Assessment of loss of dependency, future prospects, applicability of multiplier, conventional heads of compensation, and the rate of interest.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles laid down by various decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in determining the compensation, emphasizing the deceased's income, age, and the conventional heads of compensation.
Final Decision: MFA No.104894/2019 and MFA No.103864/2018 are disposed of, with MFA.No.103864/2018 partly allowed and a total compensation of Rs.38,57,000 awarded along with interest at 8% per annum. The claimants /appellants in MFA No.104894/2019 are not entitled for any interest on the compensation awarded by this Court towards the delayed period of 407 days. The apportionment and depositing of the amount as ordered by the Tribunal is not disturbed. The appellant in MFA No.103864/2018 has to calculate the entitlement of the compensation of the claimants and make application before the Tribunal for refund of the amount they are entitled to. The Insurance Company has also deposited a sum of Rs.25,000 before this Court, which is ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal for appropriate refund.
JUDGMENT :
K.N. PHANEENDRA, J.
In M.F.A.No.104894/2019 the claimants and in M.F.A.No.103864/2018 the Insurance Company have called in question the judgment and award dated 03.08.2018 passed in MVC No.625/2016 by the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional M.A.C.T., Dharwad (“Tribunal” for short). The claimants/appellants in M.F.A.Nos.104894/2019 have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation on various grounds, particularly with reference to loss of dependency by the Tribunal.
2. The brief facts of the case which are not much in dispute in this case are that :
On 28.04.2016 at about 9.30 a.m., the son of the deceased Saisagar Mallikarjun Jogannavar while proceeding on a motor cycle as a pillion rider along with his friend by name Clinton L., who was riding the said vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-06/ES-623, near Amalapur gate, a Tata Indica Car bearing Registration No.KA-64/1237, driven by its driver in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner came from the opposite direction and tried to over take the car which was moving ahead of it and dashed the motor cycle on which the deceased and his friend was traveling the motor cycle and the deceased met with an accident and due to the said accident, the son of the deceased fell down from the said motor cycle and had sustained severe injuries on various parts of his body. Thereafter, he was taken to Sridevi Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Hospital, Tumkuru, where he succumbed to the injuries in the Hospital while undergoing treatment. On various grounds under various heads, the claimants have claimed compensation.
3. The learned counsel Shri R.R. Mane appearing for the Insurance company/appellant in M.F.A.No.103864/2018 has mainly challenged the above said judgment questioning the loss of dependency assessed by the Tribunal by taking a standard income or global income of the deceased as Rs.20,000/- per month. The Trial Court has taken the said income in an excessive manner and it ought to have taken Rs.10,000/- per month as income, when there is no set of rules or set of principles laid down with regard to the assessment of income of the deceased who is not actually earning anything. The insurance company has also taken up the contention that when there is no fixed income either by way of salary or by way of any self employment the adding of future prospects is also wrongly awarded by the Tribunal. Lastly, learned counsel also contended that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal considering the age of the deceased is also not correct and it should have applied the multiplier considering the age of the dependents i.e., parents of the deceased. Last but not least, the learned counsel for the insurance company further contended in support of the grounds taken up that the rate of interest awarded by the tribunal at the rate of 8% is wrong it ought to have awarded 6% per annum. Except taking the above said contentions, there is absolutely no ground taken up with regard to the liability of the insurance company, accident being taken place, death of the deceased, age of the deceased and relationship between the deceased and the claimants.
4. In the above said background, the Court has to consider in detail the above said grounds. First we will take up the legal aspects with reference to the loss of dependency. The Tribunal has taken into consideration of the facts that, the deceased, son of the claimants who died in a motor vehicle accident, when he was studying in III Year Engineering in Akshaya Engineering College, Tumkur. The Tribunal has considered that, he would have got salaried job or he would have self employed and he would have at-least earned Rs.20,000/- per month. To the said amount, the Trial Court has added 50% towards the future prospects which in our opinion is not correct and also deducted 1/3rd out of the income towards the personal expenses of the deceased which is also not correct according to us.
5. It is well settled principles of
