The court emphasized accurate income assessment and appropriate multipliers to ensure just compensation in motor accident claims, modifying the Tribunal’s award accordingly.

JUDGMENT :

VENKATESH NAIK T., J.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent No.1-Insurance Company.

2. This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 02.02.2015 passed in MVC No.5168 of 2012 on the file of the learned Small Causes Judge and XXVI ACCM, Bengaluru, whereby, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.16,90,000/- with interest @6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.

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

4. Brief facts of the case are that on 18.01.2012 at about 9.15 p.m. when the deceased Shwetha was returning home on her TVS WEGO bearing Registration No. KA-53-U-697 near Someshwara Temple, Old Madras Road, K.R. Puram, Bengaluru, a lorry bearing Registration No. AP-02-T-7789 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two-wheeler as a result of which, the deceased fell down and sustained fatal injuries. She was declared dead in the hospital. Hence, the appellant/claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Tribunal seeking compensation. The claimant is the mother of the deceased Shwetha. The deceased was working as Accounts Executive in Siemens Limited, Bengaluru and was getting salary of Rs.50,000/- per month.

5. The Tribunal, considering the evidence on record at Exs.P1 to P18 and the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, partly allowed the claim petition awarding a total compensation of Rs.16,90,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. Being aggrieved by the same, the claimant has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

6. Sri C. Sadashiva, the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant vehemently contended that the Tribunal, without properly considering the evidence on record, wrongly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,82,800/- per annum. In fact, the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.50,000/- per month. Further, the tribunal has wrongly considered the age of the claimant, who is the mother of the deceased, as 60 years and wrongly applied the multiplier of 9 for assessing the loss of dependency. Hence, he prayed to allow the appeal.

7. Per contra, Sri B.C. Seetharama Rao, the learned counsel for respondent No.1-Insurance Company, supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that, considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation under each head, which does not call for interference at the hands of this Court, except the future prospects granted by the tribunal. In fact, as on the date of the accident, the deceased was under private employment and therefore, the future prospects applicable would be 40% in view of the ratio laid down in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. vs. PRANAY SETHI reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. Hence, it has to be reduced to 40% from 50%. Thus, he prayed to dismiss the appeal.

8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the appeal papers including the original records of the Tribunal, the following point would arise for our consideration in this appeal:

Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for enhancement?

9. In the instant appeal, respondent No.1-Insurance Company has not disputed the accident in question, the cause of death of the deceased and the liability to pay compensation to the claimant.

10. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,82,800/- considering the basic salary of the deceased at Rs.20,000/- p