The court clarified that incorrect assessment of income can lead to inadequate compensation in fatal accident claims.

JUDGMENT :

VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL, J.

This appeal is filed by the dependents of late Hampa Reddy challenging the judgment and award dated 20.11.2019 passed in M.V.C. No. 764/2018 by the MACT-II, Ballari (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and seeking for enhancement of compensation.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 27.10.2017 at about 10.00 a.m. Hampa Reddy (victim) along with his daughter in law were proceeding on the motorcycle bearing No. KA-35-EB-9440 from Dharmasagara towards Hosapate. When they reached near Anika Hyundai showroom on NH-63 Ballari-Hosapete road, a lorry bearing Reg. No. AP-03-TF-1557 came in high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle. Due to the accident Hampa Reddy succumbed to the injuries on the spot.

3. The respondents 1 to 3 are served and represented. The respondent No.3-insurer has contested the claim and filed statement of objections denying the averments and sought for dismissal of the claim petition. Respondent No.2 adopted the objection statement.

4. The claimants have filed claim petition seeking compensation for the death of Hampa Reddy. They have contended that the deceased was hale and healthy at the time of accident, he was aged 38 years, working as agriculturist cum LIC agent earning Rs.5,00,000/- per annum from agriculture and Rs.15,000/- per month as LIC agent. The Tribunal after evaluating the oral and documentary evidence, assessed income of the deceased at Rs.2,00,000/- p.a., applied the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National India Co., Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., [AIR 2017 SC 5157] and added 10% of the established income towards future prospects. Thus the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.16,13,333/- towards loss of dependency, a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards consortium and Rs.15,000/- each towards funeral expenses and loss of estate. The claimants are in appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

5. Sri B. Chidananda, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the Tribunal has committed grave error in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.2,00,000/- p.a. which is contrary to Ex.P.9. Further, the Tribunal has committed error in ignoring Ex.P.10 to P.12 the RTCs of the land owned by the deceased. Due to the untimely death of Hampa Reddy, his wife and children are unable to cultivate the land. Hence notional income is required to be assessed which they ought to have earned from the agricultural land. Hence he seeks to reassess income of the deceased appropriately taking note of Exs.P.9 and Exs.P.10 to P.12. It is further argued that the Tribunal has not awarded adequate compensation on conventional heads. Hence he seeks to allow the appeal.

6. Per contra, Sri Rajashekar S. Arani, learned counsel for respondent No.2 supporting the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal submitted that the author of Ex.P.9 has not been examined before the Tribunal and hence no credence can be given to the arguments advanced on the other side. It is further submitted that though the claimants have produced RTCs but they do not indicate that they have suffered financial loss / difficulty and unable to earn any income due to the untimely death of Hampa Reddy. The lands are very much available and the claimants continue to earn income. Hence assessment of income by the Tribunal is just and proper which does not call for interference. The counsel for the insurer therefore seeks to dismiss the appeal.

7. We have anxiously considered the submissions of the parties and carefully perused the material documents pl