1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH R DATED THIS THE18H DAY OF OCTOBER, 2016 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA MFA No.201354/2014 (MV) ... Appellant Between: The Divisional Manager Reliance General Insurance Pvt. Ltd., Gulbarga (Now represented by Authorized signatory) (By Smt. Preeti Patil Melkundi, Advocate) And:
4. Ademma W/o Laxman Waddar Age:
46. years, Occ: Household R/o Village Ghatboral Tq. Humnabad – 585 330 Amruth S/o Laxman Waddar Age:
21. years, Occ: Student R/o Rest as above Kantesh S/o Laxman Waddar Age:
19. years, Occ: Student R/o Rest as above Raghoba S/o Tukaram Aged About 45 years, Occ: Business 2 R/o Village Ghatboral Tq. Humnabad – 585 330 ... Respondents (By Sri Basavaraj R. Math, Advocate for R1 to R3; R4 served but unrepresented) This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act, praying to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment and award dated 07.03.2014 passed in MVC No.187/2013 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and MACT at Humnabad, with exemplary costs. This appeal is coming on for Admission this day, the Court delivered the following:- JUDGMENT
The second respondent in MVC No.187/2013 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and MACT at Humnabad, has come up in this appeal impugning the judgment and award dated 07.03.2014 where compensation awarded for the death of bachelor namely, Nagesh is considered.
2. The fact that the deceased-Nagesh met with an accident involving tractor trailer bearing registration No.KA.39/T-3688 and 3689 is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the injuries suffered in the said accident have led to his death. Admittedly, claim 3 petition was filed by his mother along with his two brothers. In the claim petition, brothers claim themselves to be younger to the deceased. However, when the complaint in Ex.P2 is looked into, at the time of giving complaint, second claimant would state that he is a coolie by profession and aged 28 years. According to him, the deceased-Nagesh is his younger brother. In that view of the matter, this Court feel that what is to be considered in this appeal is with reference to compensation payable to mother. So far as other claimants, viz., claimant Nos.2 and 3 being brothers who are elders to the deceased-Nagesh, they are not entitled to any compensation.
3. In that behalf, if the compensation awarded is looked into, deduction of 1/3rd by the Tribunal is erroneous. What was required to be taken is notional income with 50% deduction towards his personal upkeep and 50% as dependency to the mother. In the 4 instant case, the deceased was bachelor. His responsibility to take care of his mother would be there as long as she is alive. In the normal course, it is not expected that mother would outlive son. In the natural course of events, parents are expected to complete their life under the care and custody of their children during their lifetime.
4. Therefore, compensation which is required to be calculated for the death of son is by taking the age of the mother who is elder in age and not considering the age of the deceased which the Tribunal has erroneously taken. However, in the instant case, learned counsel appearing for the claimants Sri Basavaraj R. Math tried to substantiate that the multiplier applied by the Tribunal in taking the age of the deceased is correct and he tried to rely upon several judgments in that behalf. This Court is not inclined to accept the same for the reason that it has deviated from the accepted path in 5 which compensation is calculated while considering the compensation for the death of bachelor by this Court and by the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of judgments.
5. The stray observation in one or the other judgment cannot be taken as law being laid down in that behalf. Hence, taking the age of the deceased for ascertaining multiplier is erroneous. To that extent, this appeal is allowed and compensation payable is calculated as under:
6. In the normal circumstances, in the absence of proof of avocation and income, the notional income of the deceased for the year 2012 is taken at Rs.6,500/- per month. Therefore, this Court would take the income at Rs.6,500/- per month. If 50% of that is deducted, the loss of dependency to mother would come to Rs.3,250/- per month or Rs.39,000/- per annum. Age of the mother being 45 years, the multiplier applicable is 14. Therefore, total loss of dependency to the mother 6 would be Rs.5,46,000/-. In addition to that, she is also entitled to compensation under conventional heads at Rs.70,000/-. It will take the total compensation payable to Rs.6,16,000/- as against Rs.8,84,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
7. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the insurance company is allowed in part by re-fixing the compensation payable at Rs.6,16,000/- payable with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
8. Out of the revised compensation, 90% of the compensation with proportionate interest is ordered to be invested in fixed deposit in any Nationalized Bank for a period of five years with a right to receive interest periodically. Balance 10% with proportionate interest is ordered to be released in favour of the mother of the deceased to meet her personal expenses. 7 9. In view of the appeal being allowed in part, the entire amount which is deposited by the appellant is ordered to be sent to the Tribunal for disbursement. The balance if any is required to be deposited by the insurance company, the same shall be deposited within six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. JUDGE Sd/- NB* Ct:MHS