The court emphasized that the SSLC marks card is a valid proof of age affecting compensation calculations, ruling against exorbitant interest and ensuring just compensation principles.

JUDGMENT :

T.M. NADAF, J.

1. These two appeals by Appellate - Insurance Company as well as appellants/claimants calling in question the judgment and award dated 06.07.2024 in MVC No.142/2021 passed by II Additional District Sessions Judge and MACT at Raichur (for short ‘the Tribunal’).

Both the appeals are on quantum of compensation.

2. The date of accident, involvement of vehicle, death of Shivaiah and liability to pay the compensation are not in dispute; the only dispute is in respect of quantum of compensation.

3. Heard Sri Sharanabasappa M. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the appellant – Insurance Company in MFA No.203132/2024 and Smt. Patil Shantabai Subhash, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants in MFA No.200241/2025.

4. Sri Sharanabasappa M. Patil with all vehemence submitted that the only issue involved in this appeal is exorbitant compensation awarded under the head ‘loss of dependency’. As per SSLC marks card, the date of birth of deceased was shown as 01.06.1978. The accident occurred on 25.02.2021. As such, the age of deceased as on the date of accident was 43 years. However, the Tribunal has taken the age at 35 years in terms of postmortem report at Ex.P.6. In view of the date of birth shown in the SSLC marks card, the same ought to have been considered by the Tribunal. As the deceased was 43 years, the multiplier applicable is ‘14’ and the income towards future prospects is 25% to be added, however, the Tribunal has taken ‘16’ as the multiplier and added 40% towards future prospects, the same requires re-consideration.

5. Learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal has ordered interest at the rate of 9% p.a. and with a default clause of 12% per annum. The default clause, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court is unsustainable. Sofar as interest at 9% per annum is concerned there is no material placed by the claimants and no reasons assigned by the Tribunal for awarding the interest at 9% per annum. The interest generally maintained is 6% per annum either before this Court as well as by the Hon’ble Apex Court. In these circumstances, the interest ought to have been taken at 6% per annum. With this, learned counsel sought to allow the appeal and dismiss the appeal filed by the appellants/claimants reducing the compensation.

6. Refuting the submission of learned counsel for the appellant – insurance company, Smt. Patil Shantabai Subhash vehemently submitted that the claimants have produced Exs.P.9, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 15 in order to show that deceased had obtained certificate from Nutan Lalit Kala Mahavidhyalaya, Raichur as an Artist. This certificate clearly shows that deceased was an Artist and a skilled person, the amount fixed under the Chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for the accident of the year 2021 at Rs.14,250/- is in respect of unskilled labour. In view of the fact that even, it is considered that deceased was 43 years, he is an experienced Artist. Accordingly, the income ought to have been taken at Rs.30,000/- per month as claimed by the claimants before the Tribunal and sought to allow the appeal by dismissing the appeal filed by the Insurance company.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused both appeal papers as well as trial Court record, the points that arises for our consideration are:

1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is justified or whether the same requires any interference at the hands of this Court?

2. Whether the interest at the rate of 9% per annum with default interest of 12% per annum awarded by the Tribunal is sustainabl