SUNANDAMMA, G. PRASANNA AND G. CHANDRAKALA Vs. M/S. BAJAJ ALIANZ GEN. INSU. CO. LTD. AND SRI NARENDRA KUMAR D. PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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. 1. 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 STARTLAWFINDERRajesh and others Vs. Rajbir Singh and others reported in 2013 ACJ 1403ENDLAWFINDER

(2.) 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 STARTLAWFINDERReshma Kumari and others Vs. Madan Mohan and another reported in 2013 ACJ 1253ENDLAWFINDER 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.

(3.) 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.