Lalita and Others vs Disnesh Raosaheb Desai and Others

S. Sujatha, J.—Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

The facts in brief are:

It transpires that on 26.01.2010, the deceased along with his friend was travelling in a motorcycle bearing No. KA-29/R-1951 from Bilagi, at about, 6.00 p.m., near Bavanmatti the lorry bearing No. KA-22/A-8808 came from Hungund side in a high speed in a rash and negligent manner collided to the motorcycle in which the deceased was travelling. Due to which, deceased died on the spot. Based on these facts mother and brother of the deceased filed claim petition before the claims Tribunal. The Tribunal after considering the evidence placed on record, awarded compensation of Rs. 4,57,000/-. Being dissatisfied with the same, the claimants are before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the deceased was aged about 23 years, earning Rs. 10,000/- p.m. by doing agarbatti business. The Tribunal not considering the same, determined the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- p.m., which is on a lower side, contrary to the evidence placed on record. Further, it is contended that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards future prospects. In that context, the learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Munna Lal Jain and Others Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and Others .

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the insurer justifies the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. It is contended that, Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased and it ought to have deducted 50% of the income of the deceased, who was a bachelor, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, .

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perusing the material on record, it is noticed that the deceased was aged about 23 years at the time of occurrence of the accident. He was hale and healthy and doing agarbatti business. Even assuming that the claim made by the claimants that he was earning Rs. 10,000/- p.m. is not being proved by any supporting evidence, the assessment of the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- p.m. is on a lower side. In the absence of any cogent evidence placed on record, this Court has consistently determined the income of a victim in a motor accident that occurred in the year 2010 at Rs. 5,500/- p.m. Hence, the monthly income of the deceased is determined at Rs. 5,500/- p.m. In the considered opinion of this Court, as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Munna Lal Jain (supra), the claimants are entitled to future prospects at 30% of the income of the deceased in the circumstances of the case.

In the absence of any appeal filed by the insurer and the family of the bachelor is widowed mother and younger non earning brothers, deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased cannot be found fault with, in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma''s case (supra). The income being taken @ Rs. 5,500/- p.m., adding 30% of the income towards future prospects, deducting 1/3rd towards the personal expenses, the loss of dependency works out to Rs. 10,29,000/-.

However, the compensation awarded under other conventional heads appears to be on a lower side. In the considered opinion of this Court, it would be appropriate to award compensation towards loss of love and affection at Rs. 35,000/-, towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses at Rs. 15,000/- and towards pain and agony at Rs. 25,000/-.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs. 4,57,000/- to Rs. 11,04,600/-. The respondent-insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. The deposit shall be made within six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment after deducting interest for a period of 110 days, in view of the order passed by this Court on 08.07.2014, while condoning the delay of 110 days in filing the appeal. The claimants are entitled to withdraw the amount in deposit.