Nagaratna and Others vs Hulkoti Engineers and Others

S. Sujatha, J.—This appeal is filed by the claimants challenging the judgment and award passed by the MACT, Dharwad in MVC No. 904/2011.

The facts in brief are:

The deceased Sainath along with his friend was proceeding on the motorcycle bearing No. KA-25/EF-4370 towards Hubli on 25.07.2011 on P.B. Road near Yatri Nivas Hotel, at about 10.00 p.m., JCB vehicle bearing No. KA-25/N-9053 came from the side of Yatri Nivas Hotel in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased. Due to this impact, deceased as well as his friend pillion rider along with the motorcycle fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, they were shifted to SDM College of Medical Sciences and Hospital, Sattur, Dharwad, where the deceased succumbed to the injuries on 26.07.2011 at about 12.45 a.m. while taking treatment. On these facts, the claimants have filed the claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/-. The insurance company filed the written statement and denied material averments made in the claim petition. After analyzing the evidence placed on record by both the parties, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 7,52,694/- with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of petition till deposit from respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Being dissatisfied with the said judgment and award, the appellants are before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation.

The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the Tribunal has considered the age of the mother of the deceased to adopt the multiplier, which is contrary to the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Munna Lal Jain and Another Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and Others passed in Civil Appeal No. 4497 of 2015 and the Tribunal ought to have considered the age of the deceased while adopting the multiplier to determine the loss of dependency. It is further contended that the Tribunal though appreciated the evidence on record that the deceased was aged about 21 years and was studying final year ITI Course at Shamra College and also assisting his father in agricultural activities and was earning Rs. 8,000/- p.m., applying the notional income of Rs. 6,000/- p.m. determined the loss of dependency at Rs. 7,02,000/-, which is totally on a lower side, contrary to the evidence placed on record.

The learned counsel appearing for the insurance company justifies the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and further contended that the proper multiplier would be the younger age of the parents as per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Others Vs. Trilok Chandra and Others, . It is further contended that the Tribunal has rightly considered the evidence on record and arrived at the loss of dependency taking the notional income at Rs. 6,000/- p.m., which does not warrant any interference by this Court.

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perusing the material available on record, it is noticed that the deceased was aged about 21 years at the time of occurrence of the accident and was studying final year ITI Course in Sharma College, Hubli. As per the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Munna Lal Jain''s case (supra) the proper multiplier applicable in the present case is the age of the deceased, which is ''18'' and the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 15 and awarded compensation towards loss of dependency, contrary to the said judgment of the Apex Court. As far as second contention of the appellants is concerned, P.W.1 - the mother of the deceased in her evidence has stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 8,000/- p.m. from agricultural activities, besides studying ITI Course in Sharma College, Hubli. Ex.P15 is the salary certificate of one Nagaraj Bikkannavar issued by Tata Marcopolo Motors Limited to establish that the deceased had a bright future and he would have earned not less than Rs. 10,000/- p.m. on par with one Nagaraj Bikkannavar who has also completed ITI Course and joined the employment.

Both the learned counsel in support of their contention placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court as well as this Court. The learned counsel for the appellants relied on the judgment of this Court in MFA No. 3556/2008 dated 21.01.2013 to contend that, for the student studying second BE Computer Science, this Court has taken monthly income of Rs. 20,000/- and added 30% towards future prospects. Similarly, in the case of Shri. Rajendra and Another Vs. Shri. K. Ananthakrishna Bhat in MFA No. 294/2006 disposed of on 09.02.2010, this Court considered the income of a student at Rs. 20,000/- p.m.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kusuma and Another, to contend that the word ''just'' as its nomenclature, denotes equitability, fairness and reasonableness having a large peripheral field. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal must be just and could not be arbitrary.

I have carefully gone through the judgments relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. It is not in dispute that the deceased was aged about 21 years at the time of occurrence of the accident and was studying final year ITI Course. The young student who had a bright future and on whom the parents had the hope of dependency in old age have lost their son, untimely death of the deceased definitely has caused an impact on the parents life. It is placed on record that a student who was similarly placed as that of the deceased, who had completed his ITI training course at Sharma College, Hubli was employed in Tata Marcopolo Motors Limited and was earning about Rs. 11,0000/- p.m. If the said evidence is considered, the income of the deceased may be safely determined at Rs. 10,000/- p.m. Since the deceased was a bachelor, 50% of the income of the deceased has to be deducted towards his personal expenses. Applying the multiplier of ''18'' as per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and the income at Rs. 10,000/-, the loss of dependency works out to Rs. 10,80,000/-.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of dependency is enhanced from Rs. 07,02,000 to Rs. 10,80,000/-. Respondent No. 2 is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of petition till deposit within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment and the claimants are at liberty to withdraw the same.

In all other aspects, the judgment of the Tribunal remains undisturbed.