SHILPA Vs. BRANCH MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and award dated 9.4.2018 passed by the Court of II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Chikkamagaluru in MVC 225/2016.

(2.) Brief facts of the case: On 8.3.2015 at about 5.45 p.m., when the deceased Yogeesh along with others were proceeding in a Santro Car bearing Registration No. KA-18-ME- 4242 from Chikkamagaluru to Sakarayapatna Temple for pooja and when they reached near Devarahalli Gate on K.M.Road, at that time, another car bearing Registration No.KA-09-P-9282 came in a rash and negligent manner and caused accident. As a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to injuries. Hence, the wife and two minor children of the deceased filed the claim petition before the Tribunal. In order to support their case, wife of the deceased has been examined as PW-1 and submitted 11 documents. On the other hand, the Insurance Company did not examine any witnesses but produced two documents. After appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.10,24,128/- with interest at 8% p.a. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellants submits that even though the claimants claim that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by doing agricultural work, the Tribunal is not justified in taking the income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- which is on the lower side. Further, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others [AIR 2017 SC 5157], it is held that in case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income towards 'loss of future prospects' should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. Therefore, since the deceased was 35 years aged at the time of accident, and since he was self-employed, the learned Tribunal ought to have taken 40% of his notional income towards 'loss of future prospects', in order to calculate the "loss of dependency". However, the learned Tribunal has failed to do so. Therefore, compensation under the head "loss of dependency" needs to be recalculated. Therefore, he prays for allowing the appeal.