(Prayers: This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, praying to set aside the judgment and award dated 15.03.2023 passed by the principal senior civil judge and MACT-V, Vijayapura, in MVC no.561/2020 by allowing the appeal as prayed for, in the interest of justice and equity.

 This MFA is filed under section 173(1) of the motor vehicles act, praying to modify the impugned judgment and award dated 15.03.2023 passed in m.v.c.no.561/2020 on the file of the court of the principal senior civil judge and member motor accident claims tribunal No.v, Vijayapura at Vijayapura and allow this appeal by enhancing the compensation amount of rs.6,81,200/- only as claimed by the appellants before this Hon’ble court, in the interest of justice and equity.)

Oral Judgment:

H.T. Narendra Prasad,

1. MFA 203079/2023 is filed by the Insurance Company and MFA 203913/2023 is filed by the claimants under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) challenging the judgment and award dated 15.03.2023 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT-V, Vijayapura in MVC 561/2020.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeals briefly stated are that on 02.02.2020, when the deceased Sharanappa and others had been to Mugali Village for attending function and returning in a vehicle bearing No.KA-28-C-5844 and vehicle passed Kohlar, at that time, the driver of the said vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, and caused accident. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries.

3. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation for the death of the deceased along with interest.

4. Upon service of notice, the respondents appeared through counsel and filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter, recorded the evidence. The Tribunal, by impugned judgment and award has partly allowed the claim petition and held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.16,78,800/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, the present appeals have been filed.

6. The learned counsel for the claimants has raised the following contentions:

                  a)       Firstly, the claimants assert that the deceased was aged about 49 years at the time of the accident.

                  b)       Secondly, 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], the claimants are entitled for future prospects.

                  c)       Thirdly, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PRANAY SETHI (supra), the claimants are entitled for Rs.16,500/- towards ‘loss of estate’ and Rs.16,500/- towards ‘funeral expenses’.

                  d)       Fourthly, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. –V- NANU RAM [2018 ACJ 2782], each of the claimants is entitled to compensation of Rs.44,000/- under the head of ‘loss of love and affection and consortium’.

                  e)       Lastly, considering the age and avocation of the deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and on the lower side.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has raised the following counter- contentions:

                  a)       Firstly, the PW-1 has categorically stated that the deceased was aged about 61 years at the time of the accident. The Tribunal in not justified in taking the age of the deceased as 49 years and applying multiplier of 13 while determining compensation towards 'loss of dependency'.

                  b) Secondly, since the claimants have not established the income of the deceased, they are not entitled for compensation towards ‘future prospects’.

                  c) Thirdly, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and considering the age and avocation of the deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and is required to be reduced.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

9. It is not in dispute that Sharanappa died in the road traffic accident occurred on 02.02.2020 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

10. In the absence of proof of income, the notional income has to be assessed. According to the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for accidents occurred in the year 2020, the notional income of the deceased shall be taken at Rs.13,750/- p.m. The Tribunal has rightly assessed the said income. The same has been rightly taken by the Tribunal.

11. In respect of the age of the deceased, PW-1 in her evidence has categorically stated that the deceased was aged about 61 years at the time of the accident. Hence, the age of the deceased has to be taken as 61 years. But the Tribunal has wrongly taken as 49 years.

12. Considering the number of dependents, the Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/4th of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses and remaining amount has been taken as his contribution to the family. Multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased i.e., 61 years is ‘7’. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.8,66,250/- (Rs.13,750*12*7*3/4) on account of ‘loss of dependency’.

13. In addition, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.16,500/- on account of ‘loss of estate’ and compensation of Rs.16,500/- on account of ‘funeral expenses’. Claimant No.1, wife of the deceased is entitled for compensation of Rs.44,000/- under the head of 'loss of spousal consortium'.

14. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of ‘MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE’ (supra), claimant Nos.2 to 5, children of the deceased are entitled for compensation of Rs.44,000/- each under the head of ‘loss of parental consortium’.

15. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following compensation:



16. In the result, the following order is passed:

                  ORDER

                  a) The appeals are allowed in part.

                  b) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

                  c) The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.11,19,250/- as against Rs.16,78,800/- awarded by the Tribunal.

                  d) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

                  e) The apportionment, deposit and release of amount shall be made in accordance with the terms of the award of the Tribunal.

                  f) Amount in deposit is ordered to be transferred to the Tribunal.