Partly allowed

New India Assurance Co., Ltd., v. Dasharath S/O Krishna Naik

Karnataka HC12 Sept 2019MFA/100075/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed claimants' appeals and dismissed insurer's appeals against Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awards. Court held no contributory negligence for minor riders without licenses and enhanced compensation to Rs. 9,97,200 each with 6% interest against 9% awarded below.

What did the court decide?

Common judgment modified; compensation enhanced to Rs. 9,97,200 per claimant with 6% per annum interest from date of petition till realization.

New India Assurance Co., Ltd., Vs Dasharath S/O… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100073 of 2015 c/w MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL Nos.100074 of 2015, 100075 of 2015, 101723 of 2015, 101724 of 2015 and 101725 of 2015 MV)

¶7

IN MFA NO 100073 OF 2015 BETWEEN:

¶8

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO., LTD., THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE, DIVISIONAL MANAGER, CLUB ROAD, BELGAUM-590001, REP.DEPUTY MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, T.P.HUB, SRINATH COMPLEX, II FLOOR, NEW COTTON MARKET, HUBBALLI-580022

¶9

... APPELLANT

¶10

(By Sri.M.K.SOUDAGAR, ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

MARUTI S/O BABU TALWAR AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O.AT: VARAGAON, TAL: CHANDGAD, DIST: KOLHAPUR, MAHARASHTRA

¶13

INDU W/O MARUTI TALWAR AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O.AT: VARAGAON, TAL: CHANDGAD, DIST: KOLHAPUR, MAHARASHTRA

¶14

MARUTI S/O TUKARAM KHADARWADKAR AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O.AT/POST: BEKKINKERI, TAL: & DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶15

... RESPONDENTs

¶16

¶17

(By Sri. B M PATIL, ADV. FOR R1 & R2. R3 SERVED )

¶18

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:31.10.2014, PASSED IN MVC NO.468/2014, ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-III, BELGAUM, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.7,50,000/- ALONG WITH THE INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 9% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶19

In MFA NO.100074 OF 2015 BETWEEN:

¶20

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO., LTD., THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE, DIVISIONAL MANAGER, CLUB ROAD, BELGAUM-590001 REP.ASSISTANT MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, T.P.HUB, SRINATH COMPLEX, II FLOOR, NEW COTTON MARKET, HUBLI-580022

¶21

... APPELLANT

¶22

(By Sri. M K SOUDAGAR, ADVOCATE)

¶23

AND:

¶24

DHONDIBA S/O DUBA KAMBLE AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O.AT: KARANJAGAON, TAL: CHANDGAD, DIST: KOLHAPUR, MAHARASHTRA

¶25

SARSWATI W/O DHONDIBA KAMBLE AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O.AT: KARANJAGAON, TAL: CHANDGAD, DIST: KOLHAPUR, MAHARASHTRA

¶26

MARUTI S/O TUKARAM KHADARWADKAR AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,

¶27

R/O.AT/POST: BEKKINKERI, TAL: & DIST: BELGAUM ... RESPONDENTS

¶28

(By Sri. B M PATIL, ADV. FOR R1 & R2. R3 SERVED)

¶29

¶30

THIS MFA FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.10.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.469/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER FAST TRACK COURT-III COURT AT BELGAUM, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.7,50,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION.

¶31

In MFA NO.100075 OF 2015 BETWEEN:

¶32

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE, DIVISIONAL MANAGER, CLUB ROAD, BELGAVI-590001 REP.ASSISTANT MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, T.P.HUB, SRINATH COMPLEX, II FLOOR, NEW COTTON MARKET, HUBLI-580022

¶33

... APPELLANT

¶34

(By Sri. M K SOUDAGAR, ADVOCATE)

¶35

AND:

¶36

DASHARATH S/O KRISHNA NAIK AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O.AT/POST: HALKARNI, TAL: CHANDGAD, DIST: KOLHAPUR, MAHARASHTRA

¶37

GULABI W/O DASHARATH NAIK AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O.AT/POST: HALKARNI, TAL: CHANDGAD, DIST: KOLHAPUR, MAHARASHTRA

¶38

MARUTI S/O TUKARAM KHADARWADKAR AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O.AT/POST: BEKKINKERI, TAL: & DIST: BELGAVI

¶39

... RESPONDENTS (By Sri. B M PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2. R3 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH.)

¶40

¶41

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:31.10.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.470/2014, ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURTIII, BELGAUM, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.7,50,000/- ALONG WITH THE INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 9% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶42

In MFA NO.101723 OF 2015 BETWEEN:

¶43

MARUTI S/O. BABU TALAWAR AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. AT: VARAGAON, TQ: CHANDGAD DIST: KOLHAPUR, MAHARAHSTRA

¶44

INDU W/O. MARUTI TALAWAR AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O. AT VARAGAON, TQ: CHANDGAD DIST: KOLHAPUR, MAHARASHTRA

¶45

... APPELLANTS

¶46

(By Sri. B M PATIL, ADV.)

¶47

AND:

¶48

MARUTI S/O. TUKARAM KHADARWADKAR AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS R/O. AT POST: BEKKINKERI TQ &DIST: BELAGAVI OWNER OF TRUCK BEARING REG. NO.KA 22 A 8338

¶49

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, CLUB ROAD BELAGAVI 590 001

¶50

... RESPONDENTS

¶51

(By Sri. M.K. SOUDAGAR, ADV. FOR R2. NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH )

¶52

¶53

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:31.10.2014, PASSED IN MVC NO.468/2014, ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-III, BELGAVI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶54

In MFA NO.101724 OF 2015 BETWEEN:

¶55

DHONDIBA S/O. DUBA KAMBLE AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. AT: KARANJAGAON, TQ: CHANDGAD DIST: KOLHAPUR, MAHARAHSTRA

¶56

SARASWATI W/O. DHONDIBA KAMBLE AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE R/O. KARANJAGAON, TQ: CHANDGAD DIST: KOLHAPUR MAHARAHSTRA

¶57

... APPELLANTS

¶58

(By Sri. B M PATIL, ADV.)

¶59

AND:

¶60

MARUTI S/O. TUKARAM KHADARWADKAR AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS R/O. AT POST: BEKKINKERI TQ &DIST: BELAGAVI OWNER OF TRUCK BEARING REG. NO.KA 22 A 8338

¶61

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, CLUB ROAD BELAGAVI 590 001

¶62

... RESPONDENTS (By Sri. M K SOUDAGAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)

¶63

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:31.10.2014, PASSED IN MVC NO.469/2014, ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-III, BELGAVI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE

¶64

¶65

CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶66

In MFA NO.101725 OF 2015 BETWEEN:

¶67

DASHARATH S/O. KRISHNA NAIK AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. AT: POST: HALKARNI, TQ: CHANDGAD DIST: KOLHAPUR, MAHARAHSTRA

¶68

GULABI W/O DASHARATH NAIK AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE R/O.AT: POST: HALKARNI, TQ: CHANDGAD DIST: KOLHAPUR MAHARAHSTRA

¶69

... APPELLANTS

¶70

(By Sri. B M PATIL, ADV.)

¶71

AND:

¶72

MARUTI S/O. TUKARAM KHADARWADKAR AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS R/O. AT POST: BEKKINKERI TQ &DIST: BELAGAVI

¶73

OWNER OF TRUCK BEARING REG. NO.KA 22 A 8338

¶74

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI

¶75

... RESPONDENTS

¶76

(By Sri. M K SOUDAGAR, ADV. FOR R2 NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH )

¶77

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:31.10.2014, PASSED IN MVC NO.470/2014, ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-III, BELGAVI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶78

THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶79

¶80

JUDGMENT

¶81

Though these appeals came up for admission, with the consent of both parties, they are heard finally.

¶82

MFA No.100073 of 2015, 100074 of 2015

¶83

and 100075 of 2015 are filed by the insurer whereas MFA No.101723 of 2015, 101724 of 2015 and 101725 of 2015 are filed by the claimants assailing the common judgment and award dated 31^st October 2014 passed by the Presiding Officer FTC-III Court, Belgaum (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’, for short) in MVC Nos.468 of 2014, 469 of 2014 and 470 of 2015.

¶84

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the insurer as well as the claimants.

¶85

Rank of the parties before the Tribunal is retained for convenience.

¶86

The claimants filed claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’, for short) numbered as MVC

¶87

¶88

Nos.468 of 2014, 469 of 2014 and 470 of 2014 seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/each inter alia contending that on 06.02.2014 one Anil son of Dasharat Naik was the rider of the motor bike bearing registration No.MH.09.C/7559 along with pillion riders Babu son of Maruti Talawar and Nitin son of Dhondiba Kamble and while they were proceeding on their motorcycle near Belgaum-Vengurala main road near Ambehol nala, a truck bearing registration No.KA-22A/8338 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed to the motor bike due to which all 3 of them i.e., the rider and two pillion riders on the motor bike, sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. The claimants contended that the deceased persons were students and were also working as agriculturists earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Due to untimely death, they lost their sons. Therefore, claimed compensation on various heads.

¶89

In pursuance to the notice, first respondent-

¶90

owner of the lorry appeared through counsel and filed

¶91

¶92

statement of objections in all the cases denying all the averments made in the petitions including the age, income and occupation of the deceased persons. Further, contended that the accident had occurred not due to any rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry but due to negligent riding by the rider of the motorcycle, who had no valid and effective driving licence to rider the motor bike. However, it is contended that the lorry in question was insured with second respondent-insurance company and the policy was valid as on the date of the accident. Hence, if any liability, the same shall be fastened on the owner.

¶93

Second respondent-insurance company appeared through counsel and filed statement of objections by taking similar contentions denying rash and negligent driving by the driver of the truck and also denied the age, occupation and income of the deceased persons and also taken a contention that the rider of the motor bike did not possess a valid licence and thereby he has also contributed negligence to the accident and there is

¶94

¶95

negligence on the part of the rider of the motor bike. Hence, no liability shall be fastened on the insurer and alternatively contended that the first respondent has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, no liability shall be fastened on the insurer. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the claim petitions.

¶96

Based on the rival pleadings, the Tribunal

¶97

framed the following issues:

¶98

In MVC No.468 of 2014

¶99

1. Whether petitioners prove that one Kumar Babu s/o Maruti Talawar died in the road traffic accident that occurred on 06.02.2014 at about 9.30 hours on Belgaum-Vengurala road, Halkarni village limits, near Ambehol Nala, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of truck bearing registration No.KA-22-A-8338 as alleged in the petition?

¶100

2. Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?

¶101

3. What order or award?

¶102

In MVC No.469 of 2014

¶103

1. Whether petitioners prove that one Kumar Nitin s/o Dhondiba Kamle died in the road traffic accident that

¶104

¶105

occurred on 06.02.2014 at about 9.30 hours on Belgaum-Vengurala road, Halkarni village limits, near Ambehol Nala, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of truck bearing registration No.KA-22-A-8338 as alleged in the petition?

¶106

2. Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?

¶107

3. What order or award?

¶108

In MVC No.470 of 2014

¶109

1. Whether petitioners prove that one Kumar Anil s/o Dasharath Naik died in the road traffic accident that occurred on 06.02.2014 at about 9.30 hours on Belgaum-Vengurala road, Halkarni village limits, near Ambehol Nala, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of truck bearing registration No.KA-22-A-8338 as alleged in the petition?

¶110

2. Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?

¶111

3. What order or award?

¶112

To substantiate their contentions, first

¶113

claimant in all the 3 petitions themselves examined as PWs.1 to 3 and got marked 13 documents as per Exs.P-

¶114

1 to P-13. On behalf of the respondents, the second

¶115

¶116

respondent examined a witness as RW-1 and got marked two documents as Exs.R-1 and R-2.

¶117

On considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal answered issue Nos.1 and 2 in all the cases in the affirmative and awarded compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- in each of the claim petition.

¶118

Assailing the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the insurer filed MFA Nos.100073 of 2015, 100074 of 2015 and 100075 of 2015 whereas the claimants filed MFA No.101723 of 2015, 101724 of 2015 and 101725 of 2015 seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶119

Sri. M.K. Soudagar, learned counsel for the insurer submitted two fold arguments. The learned counsel contended that one Anil Naik, rider of the motor bike was a student aged below 18 years and he did not have any valid driving licence to ride the motor bike and apart from that there were two pillion riders totally 3 persons proceeding on the motor bike, due to

¶120

¶121

which the accident had occurred. Therefore, there is contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motor bike. Therefore, fastening the liability exclusively on the driver of the truck cannot be accepted; and the second contention is on the quantum of compensation stating that the deceased persons were students studying in II PUC and they were minors. The Tribunal committed an error in taking Rs.6,000/- per month as income and deduction of 1/3^rd of the income towards personal expenses is also not correct since the deceased were bachelors and 50% is required to be deducted towards personal expenses. Even as per the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Reshma Kumari and others v. Madan Mohan and Another reported in (2013) 9 Supreme Court Cases 65 and in the case of Sarala Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Others reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121 for a minor, Rs.15,000/- per annum shall be considered as notional income and 50% of the same has to be deducted by taking the age of the younger of the

¶122

¶123

parents, the multiplier has to be applied and could have awarded the compensation but instead the Tribunal considered income at Rs.6,000/- per month which comes to Rs.72,000/- per annum which is exorbitant. Therefore, prayed for reducing the quantum of compensation on the head of loss of dependency.

¶124

Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants supported the findings of the Tribunal in respect of fastening the liability. However, learned counsel contended that the Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record and the police documents, has rightly held that the accident occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the truck. Therefore, the question of contributory negligence being attributed by the rider of the motor bike cannot be accepted. Learned counsel also contended that in an identical case where a minor below 18 years was riding a motor cycle, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sudhir Kumar Rana v. Surinder Singh and others reported in (2008) 12 Supreme Court Cases 436, has

¶125

¶126

held that no presumption should be considered when two wheeler was ridden by a minor who was not possessing driving licence, there shall not be any contributory negligence. Further, learned counsel for the claimants contended with regard to two pillion riders on a motor bike, in a similar case this Court in MFA No.6222 of 2012 connected with MFA No.6225 of 2012 and 6226 of 2012 dated 28.09.2016 wherein it has considered that provisions of Section 128 of the Act and Rule 123 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules and 143 of the KMV Rules vis-à-vis claim made while deceased carrying two pillion riders on the motor bike and has held that merely breach of law or duty would not create a liability to pay damages and is only a breach of law. Therefore, no negligence on the part of the deceased However, learned counsel for the claimants on the quantum of compensation contended that the Tribunal considered income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month which is very meager. Even the Division Bench of this Court in MFA No.102145 of 2015

¶127

¶128

disposed off on 02.12.2015 considered Rs.7,500/- per month as income for a 16 year boy, minor, who died in the accident. Therefore, learned counsel prayed for enhancing the income.

¶129

Upon hearing the arguments of both the

¶130

counsel, the points that arise for my consideration are:

¶131

i) Whether the Tribunal is not justified in fastening the liability solely on the insurer when the deceased rider was a minor and not holding any driving licence which calls for interference?

¶132

ii) Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation?

¶133

iii) What order?

¶134

The claimants, who have themselves

¶135

examined as PWs.1 to 3, filed an affidavit in support of their evidence and got marked the report of the accident

¶136

as Ex.P-1, Ex.P-2 complaint, Ex.P-3 FIR, Ex.P-4 panchanama, Exs.P-5 and 6-MVI reports, Ex.P-7 charge

¶137

¶138

sheet, Exs.P-8, 10 and 12-PM report, Exs.P-9 and 13certificate issued by the School authority. Considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal has held that the accident had occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the truck bearing registration No.KA-22-A-8338. The accident in question is not in dispute and in the said accident all the 3 persons, i.e. the rider and two pillion riders died on the spot. Admittedly, all the deceased persons were below the age of 18 years, studying in II PUC at the time of the accident, but not below the age of 17 years. They were all 17 to 18 years old. Learned counsel for the insurer strenuously contended that the rider of the motor bike i.e. Anil Dasharath Naik was not holding driving licence for riding the motor cycle at the time of the accident. The same is not disputed by the claimants. Admittedly they were all students and not eligible for obtaining licence or riding the motor bike on the date of the accident. Where a minor has not attained the age of majority or completed the age of 18 years, cannot be

¶139

¶140

considered as they have contributed negligence because they were riding the motor cycle without licence. Same question had arisen before the Honble Apex Court in the case of Sudhir Kumar Rana (supra) wherein at paras 9 and 10 it has been held as under:

¶141

“9. If a person drives a vehicle without a licence, he commits an offence. The same, by itself, in our opinion, may not lead to a finding of negligence as regards the accident. It has been held by the courts below that it was the driver of the mini truck who was driving rashly and negligently. It is one thing to say that the appellant was not possessing any licence but no finding of fact has been arrived at that he was driving the two wheeler rashly and negligently. If he was not driving rashly and negligently which contributed to the accident, we fail to see as to how, only because he was not having a licence, he would be held to be guilty of contributory negligence.

¶142

The matter might have been different if by reason of his rash and negligent driving, the accident had taken place.”

¶143

¶144

It is clearly from the aforesaid judgment

¶145

wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has clearly held that the courts below have held that the driver of the truck was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and merely appellant was not possessing any licence and that no finding of fact has been arrived at that he was driving the two wheeler rashly and negligently, the question of the appellant therein contributing negligence to the accident does not arise. Here, in the present case, considering the evidence on record the Tribunal has given a finding that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry. Even the first respondent except filing statement of objections, has not chosen to give any evidence or examine the driver of the lorry to show that there was no negligence on his part. Such being the case and in view of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the insurer merely taking contention that there is contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motor bike and the rider was

¶146

¶147

below the age of 18 years and was not holding driving licence, cannot be accepted. Therefore, fastening of liability on the insurer by the Tribunal, cannot be interfered with. Hence, I answer point No.(i) in favour of the claimants and against the insurer.

¶148

As regards computation of compensation, it was brought on record before the Tribunal by the claimants of the deceased that the deceased were below the age of 18 years and were studying in II PUC. Before the Tribunal, the claimants contended that the deceased were working as agriculturists and were earning Rs.10,000/- per month but no documents were produced to show whether the deceased were working as an agriculturist in addition to their studies. When there is no document produced before the Court, the question of considering that the deceased were earning Rs.10,000/- per month cannot be accepted. However, the Tribunal considering them as non-earning member/as a coolie, assessed Rs.200/- per day as their income. In this regard, leaned counsel for the insurer

¶149

¶150

contended that in the case of Reshma Kumari (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has considered Rs.15,000/- as annual income for the minor and multiplier of 15 was applied. On perusal of the judgment in the case of Reshma Kumari (supra) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court considering the decision rendered in Sarla Verma’s case wherein it has been held that if the age of the deceased was below 15 years, Rs.15,000/- shall be considered as annual income and the multiplier applicable is 15. whereas in another case reported in the case of Kishan Gopal and another v. lala and others (2014) 1 SCC 244 the Hon’ble Apex Court by relying upon the principles laid down in the case of Lata Wadhwa and others v. State of Bihar and others reported in (2001) 8 SCC 197 considered Rs.30,000/- per annum as income of the deceased who died at he age of 10 years. On the other hand learned counsel for the claimants relying upon the unreported judgment of this Court in MFA No.102145 of 2015 disposed off on 02.12.2015, the Division Bench of this Court has considered Rs7,500/- per month as

¶151

¶152

income of the deceased who was aged about 16 years and applied the multiplier 18. However, in the said case, the deceased was said to be working and earning income but there was no material to show that the deceased was having permanent income or that he was self employed. Therefore, the Division Bench of this Court notionally fixed income of Rs.7,500/- per month and deduced 50% of the income. But in this case, it is averred by the claimants that all the 3 deceased were students studying II PUC and school certificate was also produced before the Court. Such being the case, considering the age, income of Rs.7,500/- per month cannot be considered. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly considered Rs.6,000/- per month as notional income of the deceased by calculating Rs.200/- per day. Therefore, I propose to consider Rs.6,000/- per month as income of each of the deceased. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi reported in ( 2017) 16 SUPREME COURT CASES 680 , 40% of the income shall

¶153

¶154

have to be considered as future prospects even based upon the same, the Division Bench of this Court has considered 40% as future prospects wherein deceased established income. Even this Court in MFA No.100096 of 2014 clubbed with MFA Cross Objection 100115 of 2018 considered 40% of the income towards future prospects. Therefore, I propose to consider 40% of the income towards future prospect which comes to Rs.2,400/- in addition to Rs.6,000/- it comes to Rs.8,400/-. The deceased were bachelors. Therefore, 50% of the income shall have to be deducted towards their personal living expenditure. If 50% is deducted from Rs.8,400/-, it comes to Rs.4,200/- and multiplied by 12 and 18 multiplier, it comes to Rs.9,07,200/-. This would be the loss of dependency.

¶155

As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and others reported in 2018 ACJ 278, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- each

¶156

¶157

towards loss of filial consortium. The claimants are also entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/ towards transportation and funeral expenses. Thus the claimants in all the 3 appeals i.e., in each of the appeals are entitled to re-assessed compensation as under:

¶158

Rs.

¶159

1	Loss ofdependency	9,07,200/-
2	Loss of filialconsortium	60,000/-
3	Loss ofestate	15,000/-
4	Transportation andfuneralexpenses	15,000/-
	Total	9,97,200/-

¶160

The claimants are entitled to compensation

¶161

of Rs.9,97,200/- in all the three appeals. However, the counsel for the appellant-insurer contended that interest awarded at 9% shall be reduced to 6%. Normally, the Division Bench of this Court considered and awarded 6% interest, therefore, I propose to reduce the interest from 9% to 6%.

¶162

¶163

19. Consequently, MFA Nos.100073 of 2015,

¶164

100074 of 2015 and 100075 of 2015 filed by the insurer are dismissed.

¶165

MFA No.101723 of 2015, 101724 of 2015 and 101725 of 2015 filed by the claimants are allowed in part.

¶166

The common judgment and award dated 31^st October 2014 passed by the Presiding Officer FTC-III Court, Belgaum in MVC Nos.468 of 2014, 469 of 2014 and 470 of 2014 is hereby modified. The claimants in their respective appeals are entitled to re-assessed compensation of Rs.9,97,200/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

¶167

The insurer shall deposit the re-assessed compensation amount with interest within four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.

¶168

¶169