VIJAYALAKSHMI Vs. SATAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation, against the judgment dated 23.01.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the MACT' for short).

(2.) Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that on 21.02.2010, deceased Mallesh Kalal along with his family members was returning from Bangalore to Belgaum in car bearing registration No.DL 2C AG 7137. When they reached near Emmetti Village of Chitradurga District, the driver of the car drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and hit the lorry which was proceeding ahead of the car. As an impact of the aforesaid accident, deceased Mallesh Kalal succumbed to the injuries on 31.03.2010. The claimants thereupon filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act inter alia on the ground that the deceased at the time of accident was aged about 56 years and was employed as a Mechanical Engineer in M/s. DVS Industries Pvt. Ltd. It was also pleaded that total income of the deceased was Rs. 30,000/- p.m. It was also pleaded that the accident took place solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the respondent No.1. The respondents filed objections and denied the averments made in the petition. It was further pleaded that claimants are not the dependants of the deceased and therefore, are not entitled to claim compensation. However, it was admitted that policy of insurance was issued in respect of vehicle in question and at the time of the accident, the vehicle was being plied as taxi for carrying passengers in violation of the conditions of the policy. Therefore, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured. 4. The Claims Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed the issues. The claimant No.1, in order to prove her case examined herself as PW-4 and 7 other witnesses namely Smt.Vidya (PW-1), Srinivas Kalal (PW-2), Smt.Rathna Bai (PW-3), G.Raj Shivkumar (PW-5), Dr.Anil S Neligigi (PW-6) and Dr.Yeshwanth Kumar (PW-7) and Bharath Bhushan (PW- 8) and exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P74. The respondents did not adduce any oral evidence. However, 6 documents were placed on record namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R6. The Claims Tribunal vide impugned judgment inter alia held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car in which deceased sustained injuries and eventually succumbed to the injuries. It was further held that the claimant No.1 are entitled to compensation of Rs. 10,37,600/-. Being aggrieved, the claimants have filed this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the Claims Tribunal ought to have relied on the salary certificate Ex.P64 and ought to have held that the total income of the deceased was Rs. 2,41,200/-. However, it was fairly admitted that nobody has been examined to prove the salary certificate Ex.P64. However, it is submitted that the Tribunal grossly erred in taking the salary of the deceased at Rs. 15,000/- p.m. and deducted 30% from the salary on account of income tax. It is also submitted that the amount awarded on the other heads is on the lower side. On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurance company has supported the judgment passed by the Claims Tribunal and has submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. 6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The only issue which arises for consideration is with regard to quantum of compensation. Admittedly, the claimants have not produced any evidence with regard to the income of the deceased. However, the fact remains that the deceased was employed as a Mechanical Engineer and at the time of accident was aged about 57 years. The Supreme Court in the case of a student of an engineering course has taken the notional income at Rs. 15,000/- in 'RADHAKRISHNA VS. GOKUL', (2013) 16 SCC 585. Therefore, in the instant case, the income of the deceased can safely be taken at Rs. 30,000/- p.m. To the aforesaid amount, 15% has to be added on account of future prospects in view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in 'NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS' AIR 2017 SC 5157. The monthly income comes to Rs. 34,500/-. Thus, the annual income comes to Rs. 4,14,000/-. The taxable income would be Rs. 1,14,000/-. Out of the aforesaid amount, 10% of the amount has to be deducted on account of income tax. Thus, the yearly income comes to Rs. 4,02,600/-. Out of which, we deem it appropriate to deduct 1/3rd towards personal expenses and therefore, the yearly dependency comes to Rs. 2,68,400/-. Taking into account the age of the deceased which was 57 years at the time of accident, multiplier of 9 has to be adopted. The claimants are entitled to Rs. 24,15,600/- on account of loss of dependency. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in 'MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. NANU RAM' 2018 ACJ 2782, the claimants are entitled to Rs. 40,000/- each as loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. Thus, the total amount of compensation under this head is assessed at Rs. 1,20,000/-. In addition, the claimants are entitled to Rs. 30,000/- on account of loss of estate and funeral expenses. In addition, the claimants are held entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,13,200/- on account of medical expenses incurred by them for treatment of the deceased. Thus, the claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs. 26,78,800/-. Needless to state that the aforesaid amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till payment is made. To the aforesaid extent, the judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.