AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Ananda, J.
The matter is listed for admission. The lower court records are received. With consent of learned Counsel for parties, it is taken up for final disposal.
I have heard Sri Spoorthy Hegde, learned counsel for the claimant and Sri P.B. Raju, learned counsel for the Insurance Company.
The claimants are the wife, son and daughter of deceased G.V. Gurusiddappa who died in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 23.11.2009. The claimants have adduced evidence to prove that the deceased was an agriculturist. He was holding four acres of land. The tribunal has determined the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,500/-. The deceased was aged about 48 years at the time of accident and the tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier as ''11''. The appropriate multiplier is ''13''. The tribunal has deducted 1/3rd of the income of deceased towards his personal and living expenditure.
The learned counsel for claimant would submit that the determination of the income of the deceased is on the lower side. The tribunal should have added 30% of the income of deceased towards loss of future prospects.
The learned counsel for the claimant has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others,
The learned counsel for the Insurance Company would submit that what is lost to the claimants is not the agricultural income, but the supervision and labour contributed by the deceased. Therefore, the tribunal has rightly determined the income of deceased at Rs. 4,500/- p.m.
The learned counsel for the Insurance Company relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Reshma Kumari and Others Vs. Madan Mohan and Another, would submit that addition of income of the deceased towards future prospects is available to dependants of deceased where deceased was in permanent employment and had the prospects of annual increments. If the deceased was self employed or on fixed wages the actual income of the deceased at the time of accident would be relevant to determine the loss of dependency. A departure should be made only in rarest and exceptional cases involving special circumstances.
It is not in dispute and cannot be disputed that the deceased was an agriculturist, in other words he was self employed. He was an employee and employer by himself. In Reshma Kumari''s case the Supreme Court following the judgment in Sarla Verma''s case has held where the deceased was self employed or on a fixed salary the courts will usually take the actual income of the deceased at the time of death. A departure should be made only in rarest and exceptional cases involving special circumstances.
In the case of Rajesh and others (cited supra) the Supreme Court has held when the deceased was self-employed or working on fixed wages, and the deceased was below 40 years, there shall be addition of 50 percent of income of the deceased towards future prospects. This addition shall be 30% in case the deceased was aged between 40 to 50 years.
In paragraph 12 of the judgment the Supreme Court has held, it would be just and equitable to provide an addition of 15 per cent in the case where the victim is between the age group of 50 and 60 years so as to make the compensation just, equitable, fair and reasonable. There shall normally be no addition thereafter.
On careful consideration of the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Reshma Human and others and also in the case of Rajesh and others, I am of the opinion that, in both the cases of the Supreme Court has dealt with the addition of income of deceased towards loss of future prospects which was evolved in Sarla Verma''s case. In Sarla Verma''s case as also in Reshma Kumar Vs. case the Supreme Court has held, where the deceased person was self employed or working on a fixed wages, his actual income should be taken for the purpose of determination of multiplicand. In the case of Rajesh and others the Supreme Court has held that, the benefit of increase of income for future prospects is available not only to the victims where the deceased was in secured employment, but also to the victims where the deceased was self-employed or employed on fixed wages. The Supreme Court has further extended this benefit even to the cases where deceased persons in the age group of 50 to 60 years. The addition of future prospects without there being discrimination between dependents of deceased persons who were in secured employment and dependents of deceased persons who were self employed or working on fixed wages would render the compensation just, equitable, fair and reasonable.
In the case on hand the Tribunal has determined the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,500/- p.m. Therefore, a sum of Rs. 1,350/- p.m. has to be added towards loss of future prospects. Thus, monthly income of deceased would be Rs. 5,850/- (Rs. 4,500/- + Rs. 1,350/-); and loss of dependency would be Rs. 4,095/- (Rs. 5,850/- - Rs. 1,755/-); and capitalised loss of dependency would be Rs. 6,38,820/- (Rs. 4,095/- x 12 x 13). The compensation awarded by the tribunal under conventional heads is confirmed. The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 6,78,820/-.
In the result, I pass the following order:
The appeal is accepted in part. The impugned award is modified, compensation of Rs. 4,36,000/- awarded by the tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 6,78,820/-. The rest of the impugned award relating to rate of interest, period of accrual of interest is confirmed.
The compensation enhanced in terms of this judgment shall be invested in the name of the first claimant in Fixed Deposit in any nationalized bank initially for a period of 5 years, thereafter it shall be renewed. The first claimant shall be authorized to withdraw periodical interest. The interest accrued on the enhanced compensation shall be equally apportioned amongst the claimants 1 to 3