Point of Law: Accident claim - loss of dependency – Entitlement of enhanced compensation amount

JUDGMENT :

M.I.ARUN, J.

Though the matter is listed for orders, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

2. This appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act by the appellants/claimants being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 18.07.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-X, Hunagund (for short “the Tribunal”) in MVC No.346/2012, seeking enhancement of compensation.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

4. The brief facts of the case are that on 02.02.2012 at about 6.15 a.m., the deceased Buddappa being the husband of petitioner no.1 and father of petitioner nos.2 to 4 was riding his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-22/ED-9197 on Belgaum-Khanapur NH.14 road and when he came near the Government Hospital, Ganebail, a Tata Truck bearing registration No.KA-22/A-735, which was moving in front of the said motorcycle without any reason and in a rash and negligent manner applied the brake suddenly and stopped in the middle of the road. The deceased consequently dashed against the truck and sustained grievous head injuries and died on the spot. Hence, the petitioners preferred MVC No.346/2012 before the Tribunal seeking a compensation of Rs.36,45,000/- with interest.

5. Respondent no.1 is the owner of the truck and respondent no.2 is the insurer with whom the offending truck was insured. Respondent no.1, though served with the notice, remained absent and was placed ex parte. Respondent no.2 appeared through its counsel and filed written statement. It denied the liability and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

6. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the issues and recorded the evidence. Petitioner No.1 got herself examined as P.W.1 and got marked eight documents as Exs.P-1 to P-8. Respondent no.2 got examined its Deputy Manager as R.W.1 and got marked the insurance policy as Ex.R.1. Based on the pleadings and the evidence let in, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident happened due to rash and negligent driving of the offending truck. It was held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation to the tune of Rs.4,65,900/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. Further, respondent no.2 with whom the offending truck was duly insured is held liable to compensate the petitioners.

7. Not satisfied by the said judgment and award, the petitioners have filed the appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation.

8. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the deceased was working as a forest guard in the Forest Department and was earning a salary of Rs.8,806/- per month; that he was aged 58 years at the time of the accident and was hale and healthy. The learned counsel contends that considering the nature of job of the deceased, though he would have retired by 60 years, in view of his robust health and average life expectancy being 70 years of age, he would have definitely found alternate employment after his retirement also. The learned counsel contends that the Tribunal erred in not taking this fact into consideration and while assessing the compensation, it has applied the principle of split multiplier which is illegal, contrary to the law laid by the Five-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others reported in 2017 ACJ 2700 and in fact is alien to the scheme of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier of 9 to the actual income of the deceased and granted compensation with an addition calculated at the rate of 10%. Thus, the Tribunal has erroneously granted the compensation much on the lower side and it requires to be enhanced.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has justified the judgment of the