Point of Law: If compensation is assessed based on notional income prevailed in year 1992, relating to death of a 17-year-old boy, who died in year 2013, without factoring in erosion in value of rupee and consequent escalation in wages, same would result in grave injustice.

JUDGMENT :

Ravikumar D.Y. aged 17 years, died in the year 2013, in a road accident as the KSRTC bus dashed against the Toyota Quails. Ravikumar was the passenger in Toyota Qualis. Parents and the brother of deceased Ravikumar D. Y. sought compensation from KSRTC. It is alleged that the driver of the KSRTC bus was negligent. The finding of negligence against the driver of KSRTC is not questioned. The Tribunal awarded Rs.5,40,000.00 as compensation vide impugned judgment and award.

2. Deceased was a student. Tribunal considered Rs.30,000.00 per annum as the notional income of the deceased. ‘16’ is the multiplier chosen based on the mother’s age. According to the tribunal Rs.4,80,000/- is the ‘loss of dependency’. In addition, Rs.50,000/- is awarded under the head of love and affection and Rs.10,000/-towards funeral expenses. In all Rs.5,40,000.00 is awarded. No interest is awarded on the compensation.

3. The claimants are seeking enhancement of compensation by impugning the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru in MVC 4315/2013.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the claimants and the respondent/Corporation.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of CHETANA V/S. BABUJI M reported in 2021(1) KLJ 249 and also the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in MFA 7690/2017 decided on 02.12.2021. By placing reliance on these two judgments, it is urged that the deceased was aged 17 years in both the cases referred above and they were considered adolescents. The income of the deceased in the cases referred supra was considered based on the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority as if they were the earning members. The learned counsel for the appellants thus urged to apply the same ratio in the present case and to assess the income of the deceased as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent/KSRTC would oppose the claim for enhancement. It is urged that the claimants have not pleaded anything about the income of the deceased. It is pleaded that the deceased was a student studying in 10th standard. Whereas, in the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the appellants, the Courts have awarded compensation on the proof of income of the deceased. On this premise, it is submitted that the facts of the case on hand do not attract the ratio in the judgments cited and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

7. This Court has perused the judgments referred above. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation, in the aforementioned judgments cited by the appellants, this Court has determined the ‘loss of dependency’ in the case of death of a 17-year-old boy, based on proof of earnings. In the instant case, there is no such pleading and proof relating to the income of the deceased. Thus ratio laid in the aforementioned cases has no application here.

8. As already noticed, the accident and death occurred in the year 2013. The deceased was aged 17 years, studying in 10th standard. The tribunal fixed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/- per annum.

9. The question that falls for determination is, “Whether a notional income of Rs.30,000/-per annum is a just and fair assessment of the income for a person aged 17 years who died in the year 2013, in the absence of any proof relating to his income?”

10. The answer is ‘No’. Notional income of Rs.30,000.00 per annum is on the lower side. This view can be justified with reference to compensation awarded by the Apex Court in the case of KISHAN GOPAL AND ANOTHER vs LALA AND OTHERS reported in (2014) 1 Supreme Court Cases 244. In the said case compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- is awarded to a boy aged 10 years who died in the accident which occurred in the year 1992. The notional income of the deceased aged 10 years was taken at Rs.