Appasab vs Kempanna

Mohan M. Shantana Goudar, J.—MFA No. 25089/2013 is filed by the claimants praying for enhancement of compensation. MFA Cross Objection No. 100186/2014 is filed by the insurance company questioning the judgment and award of the Tribunal holding that the driver of the lorry is negligent to an extent of 100%. According to the insurance company, the deceased as well as the driver of the lorry were negligent to an extent of 50% each in causing the accident.

Kumar. Vidyadhar-a 7th semester B.E. student died in the accident that occurred on 26.03.2012. He was riding the motor-cycle. When he came near Sri. G.M. Patil''s Stone Quarry, the lorry bearing registration No. KA-22/6948 came from the opposite direction and collided with the motor-cycle. Consequent upon which, Vidyadhar died on the spot itself. The claimants are his parents.

The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 9,20,000/- in all, under various heads, assessing the income of the deceased notionally at Rs. 10,000/- per month.

Learned advocates on either side argued in support of their respective cases.

The deceased-Vidyadhar had got 1st rank in S.S.L.C. to his examination center; he was 2nd rank in the previous semester of B.E. examination; less meritorious student than the deceased after completion of Degree has got employment in private company and he is getting salary of Rs. 3,50,000/- per year.

Based on these factors, Sri. Sachin S. Magadum, learned advocate appearing for the appellants argues that the Tribunal is not justified in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 10,000/- per month.

Per contra, Sri. S.K. Kayakmath, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the insurance company, submits that the Tribunal is not justified in concluding that the income of the deceased was Rs. 10,000/- per month. According to him, the income of the deceased should have been taken at Rs. 200/- per day, inasmuch as he was not earning anything. He further submits that the rider of the motor-cycle/deceased has contributed to the accident to an extent of 50% and therefore, the insurance company is liable to pay maximum of 50% of the compensation.

The police, after investigation of the crime relating to the accident in question, filed charge-sheet against the driver of the lorry. Complaint is lodged against the drive of the lorry. No complaint is lodged against the rider of the motor-cycle.

Be that as it may. The Investigating Officer, after completing the investigation of the crime, concluded that it was the driver of the lorry who was responsible for the accident in question.

We have perused the sketch of the accident, which reveals that it is a case of head-on collision. It also discloses that the motor-cyclist should have been little careful in riding the motorcycle. However, we hasten to add here itself that the driver of the lorry collided with the motorcycle taking the said lorry to more than 50% of its side of the road. Bigger the vehicle, more the responsibility.

Having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the driver of the lorry may be liable for causing the accident to an extent of 80%, remaining 20% can be attributed to the rider of the motor-cycle.

It is, no doubt, true that the deceased was not earning as on the date of accident. He was a B.E. final year student. Within six months, he would have completed his B.E. Course and could have joined some job. His class-mates have got jobs attached with salary of more than Rs. 3,50,000/- per year.

Be that as it may. The Division Bench of this Court in M.F.A. No. 296/2006 has taken Rs. 20,000/- as the monthly income in respect of a Diploma student, who has expired in the accident. In yet another matter i.e., M.F.A. No. 3556/2008 disposed of on 21.01.2013, this Court assessed the notional income of the deceased B.E. student at Rs. 20,000/- per month. Therefore, it is clear that this Court has been consistently taking Rs. 20,000/- as notional income of the deceased who was studying in B.E. Course. Therefore, interest of justice would be met if we also adopt the same view. [Also see the judgment of this Court in M.F.A. No. 24579/2013(MV) disposed of on 18th November 2014]. Hence, we prefer to assess the income of the deceased in this matter also at Rs. 20,000/- per month notionally.

30% needs to be added towards future prospects which comes to, i.e., Rs. 20,000/- + Rs. 6,000/- = Rs. 26,000/-. Further, 50% needs to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased [i.e., Rs. 26,000/- - Rs. 13,000/- = Rs. 13,000/-]. Thus, the notional income of the deceased including the future prospects would come to Rs. 13,000/- per month. 14'' is the proper multiplier having regard to the age of the youngest of parents. If it is so, the claimants would be entitled to Rs. 21,84,000/- under the head of loss of future income. In addition to the same, the claimants are entitled to Rs. 70,000/- under the conventional heads. Thus, in all the claimants would be entitled to Rs. 22,54,000/- compensation.

Since, the deceased had contributed to an extent of 20% of the accident in question, such percentage needs to be deducted from the total compensation to be awarded. If 20% of the compensation is deducted, (i.e., Rs. 22,54,000/- - Rs. 4,50,800/-), the claimants would be entitled to Rs. 18,03,200/-.

Accordingly, the following order is passed:

ORDER

"(a) The compensation is enhanced from Rs. 9,20,000/- to Rs. 18,03,200/-;

(b) The compensation shall carry at 6% interest as ordered by the Tribunal;

(c) The compensation amount shall be apportioned and paid equally between the claimants;"

The appeal and cross-objection are disposed of accordingly.