UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. ANBU C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment and award dated 12.08.2015 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru (SCCH-20) in MVC No.2215/2014, is called in question in this appeal by the claimants who have sought for enhancement of compensation. By the judgment and award, the tribunal has awarded the total compensation of Rs.44,04,000/- under the three heads in favour of the claimants who are the parents of the deceased.

(2.) In the accident that occurred on 9.5.2014, Anil Kumar, aged about 25 years/son of the claimants, expired. The claimants are the parents of the deceased. The deceased was the bachelor and was working as an Executive Operator in Kuoni India KDM. The letter of appointment and the salary certificate of the deceased (Exs.P.8 and P.9) reveal that the deceased was being paid Rs.2,76,000/- per annum i.e., 23,000/- per month. The tribunal by adding 50% of his income towards future prospects concluded that Rs.31,500/- per month would be the basis for quantifying compensation under the head 'loss of income due to the demise of the deceased'. While quantifying the compensation, the tribunal applied 17 as multiplier taking into consideration the age of the deceased. The tribunal also deducted 1/3rd of the monthly income towards personal expenses of the deceased. Based on these facts and figures, the sum of Rs.42,84,000/- is awarded under the head 'loss of dependency'. The claimants are also awarded Rs.1,00,000/- under the head 'loss of love and affection' and Rs.20,000/- towards 'funeral and obsequies'. Thus, the tribunal in all has awarded compensation of Rs.44,04,000/- under the various heads.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant drawing the attention of the Court to the IMV report (Ex.P.3) and the evidence of the driver of the lorry involved in the accident submits that the driver of the lorry is innocent and the accident is occurred due to the sole negligence of the deceased; the accident has not occurred in the manner which is sought to be pleaded by the claimants; if really, the lorry has hit the motor vehicle from behind, the motor vehicle ought to have been damaged to the major extent at the hind portion of the two wheeler since the two wheeler was hit at its front side. There is no chance of the lorry hitting the motor cycle from behind.