Sri. Kallanagouda and Others vs Sri. Halashantanagouda and The Manager (Duly Constituted Attorney)

H. Billappa, J.—This appeal by the claimants is directed against the judgment and award, dated 26.5.2012, passed by the Fast Track Court-I, Dharwad, in MVC No. 190/2011. By the impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,56,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation.

Aggrieved by that, the appellants-claimants have filed this appeal.

Briefly stated, the facts are:

The claimants are parents, brother and sisters of the deceased. That on 2.2.2011, at about 21.15 hours, deceased Linganagouda was travelling on the motorcycle bearing No. KA-03/EH-7058 as pillion rider. One Irappa was riding the motorcycle. When the motorcycle came near Isckon Temple, Rayapur, on P.B. Road, the driver of the car bearing No. KA-25/P 3568 drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle in which the deceased was travelling. As a result of that, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. The appellants claimed compensation of Rs. 35 lakhs. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,56,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Aggrieved by that, the appellants-claimants have filed this appeal.

The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal has erred in taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,000/- per month. Further, he submitted that the Tribunal has not considered future prospects. He also submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards conventional heads also is inadequate. He therefore submitted that the impugned judgment and award needs to be modified.

As against this, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that the Tribunal on proper consideration of the material on record has awarded just and reasonable compensation and therefore, it does not call for interference. He also submitted that the salary certificate produced by the claimants shows that the deceased was getting salary of Rs. 4,000/- per month and therefore, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,000/- per month which is proper and therefore, the impugned judgment and award does not call for interference.

We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

The point that arises for our consideration is:

Whether the impugned judgment and award calls for interference?

It is relevant to note, the deceased Linganagouda died in the accident that occurred on 2.2.2011 is not in dispute. The deceased was working as a Supervisor at Hubli in Shakthi Enterprises. Ex. P7 salary certificate shows that the deceased was getting salary of Rs. 4,000/- per month. Therefore, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,000/- per month which is proper. However, the Tribunal has not considered future prospects. In view of Santosh Devi''s case, 30% needs to be added towards future prospects. If 30% is added, the income comes to Rs. 5,200/- per month. There are 5 dependents. Therefore, 1/4th needs to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. If 1/4th is deducted, the loss of dependency per month comes to Rs. 3,900/- per month.

The learned counsel for the respondent-insurance company contended that the age of the mother has to be taken for the purpose of multiplier. In Amrit Bhanu Shali and Others Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:

The selection of multiplier is based on the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of dependant. There may be a number of dependants of the deceased whose age may be different and, therefore, the age of dependants has no nexus with the computation of compensation.

There are five dependants. The appellants 3 to 5 are younger in age to the deceased. Therefore, we propose to take the age of the deceased for the purpose of multiplier. The deceased was aged 32 years at the time of the accident. Therefore, the appropriate multiplier is 16. The compensation payable towards loss of dependency comes to Rs. 3,900 x 12 x 16 = Rs. 7,48,800/-. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 7,48,800/- is awarded towards loss of dependency.

The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs. 10,000/- towards funeral and transportation and Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of estate. We award a sum of Rs. 45,000/- in all. The total compensation payable comes to Rs. 7,93,800/- and the break-up is as follows:

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC No. 190/2011 stands modified enhancing the compensation to Rs. 7,93,800/- from Rs. 2,56,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation.

The 2nd respondent shall deposit the amount within two months from today excluding the amount already deposited, if any.

Out of the enhanced compensation of Rs. 5,37,800/- the appellants 3 to 5 shall be entitled to a sum of Rs. 30,000/- each with proportionate interest.

In the balance amount of Rs. 4,47,800/- the appellants 1 and 2 shall be entitled for compensation equally. Out of the amount awarded to the appellants 1 and 2, a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs each with proportionate interest shall be invested in fixed deposit in any nationalised bank for a period of five years. The appellants 1 and 2 shall be entitled to withdraw the interest accrued on it. The balance amount shall be released in favour of the appellants 1 and 2 as apportioned.