The court established that a proper assessment of a deceased's income must include standard guidelines and future prospects to ensure just compensation in motor vehicle accident cases.

JUDGMENT :

T.M.NADAF, J.

This appeal is by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation arising out of judgment and award dated 06.06.2019 in MVC No.107/2016 passed by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT-XII, at Vijayapura (for short, ‘the Tribunal’).

2. The date of accident, involvement of vehicle, death of Abbasali S/o Imamsab Kembhavi and liability to pay the compensation are not in dispute. The only dispute is in respect of quantum of compensation.

3. Heard Sri Babu H. Metagudda, learned counsel appearing for the appellants – claimants, Sri J. Augustin, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 - United India Insurance Company and Smt. Preeti Patil Melkundi, leaned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 –Oriental Insurance Company Limited. Vide order dated 17.11.2023, notice of this appeal in respect of respondent Nos.1 and 3 is dispensed with.

4. Sri Babu H. Metagudda with all vehemence submitted that the date of accident was 24.12.2015. The deceased was having lands and earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. Untimely death of deceased had given a serious blow to the financial capacity of the Family, as deceased was the sole bread winner and the entire family is under financial crisis. The Tribunal though awarded compensation taking into consideration the multiplier of ‘14’ and deducting 1/4^th towards personal expenses of deceased, however, taken the income at Rs.7,000/- p.m. But, as per the Chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, a sum of Rs.8,000/- p.m. is fixed for the year 2015. The deceased was aged between 41 to 45 years. As such, 25% ought to have been added towards loss of future prospects. So also the compensation awarded under the conventional heads, particularly filial consortium is on the lower side, which requires re-consideration.

5. Sri Babu H. Metagudda further submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded 10% escalation from the year 2017 for each completed period of three years on the compensation awarded under the conventional heads. The accident in the case on hand occurred in the year 2015. As such, the appellants/claimants are entitled for two terms of three years each under the head 10% escalation on the conventional heads and accordingly sought to allow the appeal and enhance the compensation.

6. Refuting the submission of learned counsel for the appellants – claimants, Sri J. Augustin and Smt. Preeti Patil Melkundi, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 4, respectively, vehemently submitted that the Tribunal in the absence of any income proof, properly taken the income of deceased at Rs.7,000/- p.m. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under all the heads is just and proper. As such, no interference is called for at the hands of this Court and accordingly sought to dismiss the appeal.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the entire appeal papers, the only point that would arise for our consideration is:

Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal befit within the expression ‘just compensation’?

8. Our answer to the above point is in partly affirmative for the following:

REASONS

It is not in dispute that the accident in the case on hand had occurred on 24.12.2015. As per the income fixed for the year 2015, according to the Chart prepared by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority is at Rs.8,000/- p.m. insofar as unskilled labour. In the absence of any proof of income, the Tribunal ought to have taken the monthly income fixed by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority at Rs.8,000/- instead of Rs.7,000/-. As per the records, deceased was between aged between 41 to 45 years. In terms of the law laid down by th