THIPPESWAMY S/O. BANDRAVAPPA & ORS. vs V. RAMU S/O. VEERANNA & ORS.

This appeal is filed by the appellants under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-IX, at Ballari, (hereinafter referred to as ''the Tribunal'', for brevity), in M.V.C.No.793/2012 dated 22.12.2012. The appellants, in their memorandum of appeal, have prayed for enhancement of compensation awarded under the impugned judgment.

In response to the notice, respondent No.3 is represented by its counsel Sri N.R.Kuppelur and notices to respondent Nos.1 and 2 are dispensed with vide Court order dated 03.11.2014.

Heard the arguments from both sides. Perused the memorandum of appeal, impugned judgment & award and the entire records placed before us.

In their memorandum of appeal, the appellants have taken up a contention that, the Tribunal below has failed to award any compensation under the head ''future prospects''. The compensation awarded towards ''loss of dependency'' is also meager. The income of the deceased was taken at very less amount. Further, stating that the compensation awarded towards loss of love and affection, loss of estate, funeral and transportation of dead body, are also meager, the appellants have prayed for modifying the Judgment and award under appeal and to enhance the compensation.

In the light of the above, the following point arise for our consideration: "Whether the appellants-claimants have made out grounds to allow the appeal?"

For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred with their rankings they were holding in the Tribunal below.

The summary of the case of the claimants in the Tribunal below is that, on 03.03.2013, Smt. Hondramma, said to be the wife of the first claimant and the mother of the second claimant, along with some other passengers, was travelling in an auto rickshaw, bearing registration No.KA-34/A-3704 at about 5:30 p.m. from Sreedharagadda village towards D. Hirehal village. At that time, due to the rash and negligent driving of the said auto rickshaw by its driver, it turned turtle. As a result of the said accident, Smt.Hondramma sustained injuries and succumbed to it on the spot. The claimants stating that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month and the family was depending upon her income and that she was aged 32 years as on the date of accident, claimed a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation from the respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3 in the Tribunal below, who were stated to be the driver, owner and insurer of the alleged offending vehicle. The Tribunal after recording the

evidence led before it and hearing both the sides, allowed the claim petition in part and awarded a compensation of Rs.4,88,300/- together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. It is the said Judgment and award, the claimants have challenged in this appeal, seeking enhancement of the awarded amount.

Since it is the claimants'' appeal seeking enhancement in the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal, analyzing the occurrence of the accident and fixation of the liability upon the respondents is not necessary. As such, the only question that remains for consideration is regarding the reasonability of the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal below.

The evidence of PW-1 Sri Thippeswamy, who is said to be the husband of deceased and claimant No.1, corroborates his statement made in the claim petition, to the extent that the deceased was his wife and was working as a Coolie. He has further stated that, she was aged 32 years as on the date of the accident. The said age was accepted by the Tribunal below in the light of the charge sheet filed

by the Police and the Post-mortem report of the deceased, which was marked at Exhibit P-5. The respondents also have not disputed about the age of the deceased. Though the claimants contend that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month as a Coolie, the Tribunal below noticing that there are no corroborative documentary evidence to prove the alleged income, confined it to Rs.3,600/- per month. Applying the multiplier of 16 and deducting 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards her personal expenses, it computed the compensation towards ''loss of dependency'' at Rs.4,60,800/-.

It is the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants, that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month, as such, the Tribunal below ought to have taken the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month.

No doubt the Tribunal has rightly observed that, except the statement made in evidence, the claimants have not produced any documents to prove the income of the deceased. It assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.120/- per day amounting to Rs.3,600/-

per month. Admittedly, the accident has occurred on 03.03.2012. As regards the income of the deceased, for the accident occurred in the year 2012, where no documents proving the income could be produced, the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court are taking notional income. In the instant case, considering the facts and circumstances, the notional income of the deceased is required to be taken at Rs.6,000/- per month, which in fact is also the income as canvassed by the claimants. The Tribunal below deducted 1/3rd of the notional income of the deceased towards her personal expenses. But it lost site of the fact that the claimant No.1 is the husband of the deceased who himself was identified as an agriculturist-cum-coolie. As such, generally and normally he will be the main bread earner of the family. He has not produced any documents to show that the deceased was contributing her entire income or substantial income towards the family. Therefore, considering that the deceased was the wife of the main bread earner of the family and the claimant No.2 is the only minor child they have, we are of the view that, the deduction towards the personal expenses of

the deceased is required to be modified in this case at 50%. As such, after deducting Rs.3,000/- per month towards personal expenses, the monthly contribution of the deceased towards the family would be Rs.3,000/- per month, which comes to Rs.36,000/- per annum (Rs.3000/- X 12 = Rs.36,000/-). Since the age of the deceased is not disputed as 32 years, the appropriate multiplier applicable to the said age is 16. As such, the compensation towards ''loss of dependency'' would be Rs.36,000/- X 16 = Rs.5,76,000/-. Since the Tribunal below has awarded only a sum of Rs.4,60,800/- under the said head the same requires to be modified and enhanced to Rs.5,76,000/-.

Towards ''loss of love and affection'', the Tribunal below has awarded the compensation of Rs.10,000/-. Considering the fact that the claimant No.1 has lost his wife and claimant No.2 has lost his mother at his young age, we are of the view that, the compensation under the said head requires to be enhanced and fixed at Rs.50,000/-.

Towards ''loss of estate'', the Tribunal below has awarded only a sum of Rs.10,000/-, which under the facts and circumstances of the case, requires to be doubled and to be fixed at Rs.20,000/-.

Towards ''transportation of the dead body and funeral expenses'', the Tribunal below has awarded a sum of Rs.7,500/-. We intend to enhance the same to Rs.20,000/- in the light of circumstances of the case and cost of living prevailing in the year of accident.

Thus, in total the claimants are entitled for the compensation as below:

1 Towards loss of Dependency Rs.5,76,000-00

2 Towards loss of love and affection Rs.50,000-00

3 Towards loss of Estate Rs.20,000-00

4 Towards Transportation of dead body and funeral expenses Rs.20,000-00

TOTAL Rs.6,66,000-00

The learned counsel for the appellant has also contended in his arguments that, the future prospects of the deceased also requires to be considered and compensation is required to be awarded on the

said head. Our Hon''ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No (S). 3409 of 2017, in Chikkamma and another Parvathamma and another in its order dated 28.02.2017 was pleased to hold at paragraph No.9 as below. " 9. Taking into account the fact that the deceased was a self employed person and also as the question with regard to award of future prospects of a self employed person is presently pending before a larger Bench of this Court and as some enhancement of compensation has already been made by us, we are of the view that in the facts of the present case, the claim for future prospects ought not to be gone into by us. The said claim, therefore, is refused ".

Following the same principle in the instant case also, considering the pendency of the question with regard to award of future prospects of a self employed person, before the larger Bench of the Hon''ble Apex Court and of the fact that the reasonable enhancement of the compensation has been granted in this appeal, we are of the view that in the facts of the present case, the claim of the

compensation under the head ''future prospects'' need not be awarded. As such, the said claim is refused.

Barring the above, the appellants are not entitled for enhancement of compensation or awarding of compensation under any other heads.

Accordingly, we answer the above point partly in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following order: The appeal is allowed in part.

The judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - IX, at Ballari in MVC No.793/2012, dated 22.12.2012 is modified.

The compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal which is at Rs.4,88,300/- is modified and enhanced to Rs.6,66,000/- (Rupees Six lakhs Sixty Six Thousand Only).

The rest of the order of the Tribunal with respect to the holding the respondent No.3 liable and directing him to deposit

the awarded amount, awarding the interest, its rate, terms regarding release of the amount awarded, shall remain unaltered.

No order as to costs.