Partly allowed

Madiwalappa S/O. Chinnappa Javali v. Uday S/O. Dhashrat Shindhe

Karnataka HC21 Aug 2019MFA.CROB/787/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed cross-objections and dismissed insurer's appeals, modifying the tribunal's award by reassessing compensation to Rs. 6,57,000 each for two deceased persons based on higher notional income and future prospects, citing Pranay Sethi and Magma cases.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 6,57,000 each with interest; insurer directed to deposit amount within four weeks.

Madiwalappa S/O. Chinnappa Javali Vs Uday S/O… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

-1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^st DAY OF AUGUST 2019

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶6

M.F.A.NO. 24133 OF 2010 (MV)

¶7

C/W

¶8

M.F.A. NO.24134 OF 2010

¶9

M.F.A.CROB. NO.786 OF 2012

¶10

AND

¶11

M.F.A.CROB. NO.787 of 2012

¶12

IN M.F.A. NO.24133 OF 2010

¶13

BETWEEN

¶14

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., SUJATHA COMPLEX, P.B.ROAD, HUBLI, NOW R/BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER.

¶15

... APPELLANT

¶16

(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND

¶18

MAHADEVAPPA BASAPPA WAKKUND, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O: NAVALUR, TQ: DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶19

LAXMI W/O MAHADEVAPPA WAKKUND, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: NAVALUR, TQ: DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶20

-2-

¶21

UDAY S/O DASHARATH SHINDE, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: NOT KNOWN, R/O: 1^ST MAIN, NO.1, 1^ST CROSS, NARAYANPUR, DHARWAD.

¶22

... RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SMT. SHAILA BELLIKATTI, ADV., FOR R1 & R2; SMT. BHARATI S. HANAGANDI, ADV., FOR R3)

¶24

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF M.V. ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:05.05.2010, PASSED IN M.V.C. NO.289/2006, ON THE FILE OF THE I-ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) & AMACT, DHARWAD, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.2,36,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION.

¶25

IN M.F.A. NO.24134 OF 2010

¶26

BETWEEN

¶27

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., SUJATA COMPLEX, P.B. ROAD, HUBLI, NOW R/BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER.

¶28

... APPELLANT

¶29

(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADVOCATE)

¶30

AND

¶31

MADIWALAPPA CHINNAPPA JAVALI, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: TAILORING, R/O NAVALUR, TQ. DHARWAD, DIST. DHARWAD.

¶32

MAHADEVI W/O MADIWALAPPA JAVALI, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O NAVALUR, TQ. DHARWAD, DIST. DHARWAD. 3. UDAY S/O DASHRATH SHINDE, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF THE MOTOR CYCLE

¶33

-3-

¶34

BEARING NO. KA-24/W 7695, R/O: 1^ST MAIN, 1^ST CROSS, NARAYANPUR, DHARWAD.

¶35

... RESPONDENTS

¶36

(BY SMT. SHAILA BELLIKATTI, ADV., FOR R1 & R2; SMT.BHARATI S. HANAGANDI, ADV., FOR R3)

¶37

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF M.V. ACT 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:05.05.2010, PASSED IN M.V.C. NO.290/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE I-ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) & AMACT, DHARWAD, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.2,36,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION.

¶38

IN M.F.A. CROB. NO.786 OF 2012

¶39

BETWEEN

¶40

MAHADEVAPPA S/O. BASAPPA WAKKUND, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE R/O. NAVALUR, TQ: DHARWAD. DIST: DHARWAD.

¶41

LAXMI W/O. MAHADEVAPPA WAKKUND AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD R/O. NAVALUR, TQ: DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶42

... CROSS-OBJECTORS

¶43

(BY SMT. SHAILA BELLIKATTI, ADVOCATE)

¶44

AND

¶45

UDAY S/O. DHASHRAT SHINDHE, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF MOTORCYCLE BEARING NO.KA-25/W-7695, R/O. 1^ST MAIN, 1^ST CROSS,

¶46

-4-

¶47

NARAYANAPUR, DHARWAD.

¶48

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., SUJATA COMPLEX, P.B. ROAD, INFRONT OF INDIRA GLASS HOUSE, HUBLI.

¶49

... RESPONDENTS

¶50

(BY SRI.RAJASHEKHAR S ARANI, ADV., FOR R2; R1- NOTICE SERVED)

¶51

THIS M.F.A. CROB. IN M.F.A.NO.24133/2010 IS FILED U/O.41 RULE 22 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:05-05-2010 PASSED IN MVC.NO.289/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE I-ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE(SR.DN) AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T., DHARWAD, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶52

IN M.F.A. CROB. NO.787 OF 2012

¶53

BETWEEN

¶54

MADIWALAPPA S/O. CHINNAPPA JAVALI, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: TAILORING, R/O. NAVALUR, TQ: DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶55

SMT. MAHADEVI W/O. MADIWALAPPA JAVALI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. NAVALUR, TQ: DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶56

... CROSS-OBJECTORS (BY SMT. SHAILA BELLIKATTI, ADVOCATE)

¶57

-5-

¶58

AND

¶59

UDAY S/O. DHASHRAT SHINDHE, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF MOTORCYCLE BEARING NO.KA-25/W-7695, R/O. 1^ST MAIN, 1^ST CROSS, NARAYANAPUR, DHARWAD.

¶60

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., SUJATA COMPLEX, P.B. ROAD, INFRONT OF INDIRA GLASS HOUSE, HUBLI.

¶61

... RESPONDENTS

¶62

(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADV., FOR R2; R1- NOTICE SERVED)

¶63

THIS M.F.A. CROB. IN M.F.A.NO.24134/2010 IS FILED U/O.41 RULE 22 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:05-05-2010 PASSED IN MVC.NO.290/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE I-ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE(SR.DN) AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T., DHARWAD, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶64

THESE APPEALS AND CROSS-OBJECTIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶65

JUDGMENT

¶66

Though these appeals as well as cross-objections came up for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for parties, heard finally.

¶67

-6-

¶68

M.F.A.No.24134 of 2010 are filed by the insurer whereas M.F.A.Crob.No.786 of 2012 and

¶69

M.F.A.Crob.No.787 of 2012 are filed by the claimants assailing the judgment and award dated 05.10.2010, passed by the I-Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) and AMACT, Dharwad (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal” for short) in MVC No.289 of 2006 clubbed with MVC No.290 of 2006.

¶70

I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for both the parties.

¶71

For the sake of convenience, the ranking of the parties before the Tribunal is retained.

¶72

The claimants had filed MVC No.289 of 2006

¶73

and MVC No.290 of 2006 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for short) claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- each for the death of Basavaraj as well as Manjunath, who

¶74

-7-

¶75

died in the road traffic accident, interalia contending that on 21.04.2006 at about 7.30 p.m., when Basavaraj as well as Manjunath, after completing their contractual work, were proceeding on a bicycle and when they were coming on P. B. Road and reached near Navalur on the left side of the road, at that time, a motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA-25/W-7695, rode by its rider from the backside of the bicycle, with a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the bicycle, due to which both Basavaraj and Manjunath fell down and sustained grievous injuries and they died. It is contended by the claimants, who are the parents of both the deceased, that due to untimely death of deceased persons, they lost the earning member of their family. Both the deceased were working as electricians with a contractor and were earning Rs.6,000/- each per month as a salary and due to their death, these claimants have lost the dependency. Hence, prayed for granting compensation on various heads.

¶76

-8-

¶77

In pursuance to the notice, respondent

¶78

No.1/owner of the motorcycle did not contest the case and remained exparte. Respondent No.2, who is the insurer, appeared through a counsel and filed statement of objections in both cases by denying the liability of the insurance company and also contended that there is a violation of terms and conditions of the policy in respect of driving licence and also contended that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, since the rider of the motorcycle was not made as a party. It is further contended that there was no damage caused to the motorcycle, which is said to have involved in the accident and it shows that the accident was caused by a different vehicle and intentionally the motorcycle was included by the petitioner to make a false claim. The postmortem report does not disclose that the injuries were caused due to the impact of the motorcycle. The panchanama also reveals that the front wheel, front mud-guard, handle and chassis of the bicycle, on which

¶79

-9-

¶80

the deceased were proceeding, were badly damaged. However, it is contended by the learned counsel for the insurer that if any liability is fixed, the same is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy and hence prayed for dismissing the claim petitions.

¶81

Based on the rival pleadings, the Tribunal

¶82

framed the following issues:-

¶83

ISSUES IN MVC NO.289 of 2006

¶84

1. Whether the petitioners prove that deceased Basavaraj S/o. Mahadevappa Wakkund died due to the RTA on 21.04.2006 at 7.30 p.m., on P.B. Road, near Gandhi Nagar Cross, Dharwad due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the offending motor cycle bearing No.KA-25/W-7695?

¶85

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, what is the just and proper amount of compensation? And who is liable to pay the said amount of compensation?

¶86

3. What order or award?

¶87

-10-

¶88

ISSUES IN MVC NO.290 of 2006

¶89

1. Whether the petitioners prove that he sustained injuries due to the RTA on 21.04.2006 at 7.30 p.m., on P.B. Road, near Gandhi Nagar Cross, Dharwad due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the offending motorcycle bearing Reg.No. KA-25/W-7695?

¶90

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what is the just and proper amount of compensation? And who is liable to pay the said amount of compensation?

¶91

3. What order or award?

¶92

To substantiate their contentions, the 1^st claimant in both cases i.e. Mahadevappa and Madivalappa were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and got examined an eyewitness, one Krishna Belagaonkar, as P.W.3 and also got marked six documents as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-6. In order to prove its defence, the insurer got examined the owner of the motorcycle as R.W.1 and the officer of the insurance company as R.W.2 and also got

¶93

-11-

¶94

marked five documents as Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-5. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal answered Issue No.1 in affirmative in both the cases and allowed the petitions in part and awarded compensation of Rs.2,36,000/- in each case, with interest @ 6% per annum on various heads, as under:-

¶95

IN M.V.C. No.289 of	2006
1. Loss of dependency	Rs. 2,16,000/-
2. Loss of estate	Rs. 10,000/-
3. Funeral expenditure,	Rs. 10,000/-
transportation of dead body
Total	Rs. 2,36,000/-
IN M.V.C. No.290 of	2006
1. Loss of dependency	Rs. 2,16,000/-
2. Loss of estate	Rs. 10,000/-
3. Funeral expenditure,	Rs. 10,000/-
transportation of dead body
Total	Rs. 2,36,000/-

¶96

Assailing the judgment and award passed by

¶97

the Tribunal and fastening the liability, the insurance

¶98

company has filed MFA No.24133 of 2010 & MFA No.24134 of 2010 whereas the claimants have filed MFA

¶99

-12-

¶100

Crob.No.786 of 2012 and MFA Crob.No.787 of 2012 for enhancement of compensation.

¶101

The learned counsel for appellant/insurer, Sri. Rajashekhar S Arani, has disputed the very nature of the accident and has contended that as per the complaint filed by the complainant, an unknown motorcycle has caused the accident and the complainant has not given the registration number of the motorcycle in his complaint. There is no evidence to show that the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-25/ W-7675 was involved in the accident. Though a witness, who is said to be an eyewitness to the accident, was examined as P.W.3, but the said witness turned hostile before the Magistrate in the criminal case and in the said criminal case registered against the rider of the motorcycle, the accused/rider of the motorcycle has been acquitted. It is contended that all the eyewitnesses in the said criminal case were turned hostile and such being the case, the evidence of P.W.3, who is said to be

¶102

-13-

¶103

an eyewitness to the accident, is not acceptable. Based upon the evidence of P.W.3, the fastening of the liability on the owner and the insurer of the motorcycle is not correct. The learned counsel has also contended that there was no damage caused to the motorcycle and the motorcycle was not at all produced before the Criminal Court to show that the accident was actually caused by the rider of the said motorcycle. Hence, prayed for dismissing the claim petitions. Alternatively, the learned counsel has also argued in respect of quantum of compensation contending that the deceased persons were not at all employees and no documents were produced before the Tribunal to show their work as electricians or any other avocation to consider their income. Absolutely, there was no income earned by them. In such a case, only the notional income of Rs.3,000/- is required to be considered and 50% of the said income has to be deducted towards personal expenditures of the deceased, as they were bachelors,

¶104

-14-

¶105

but the Tribunal has deducted only 1/3^rd of the income towards personal expenses, which is not correct. Hence, prayed for allowing the appeals filed by the insurer and dismiss the cross-objections filed by the claimants.

¶106

Per contra, the learned counsel for claimants

¶107

though supported the findings of the Tribunal in respect of fastening the liability on the insurer and owner of the motorcycle, but contended in respect of compensation as very meager. It is contended that the Tribunal, in both claim petitions, has awarded only Rs.2,36,000/each towards the death of deceased persons, who were aged about 18 years. As per the complaint, they were working as electricians with a contractor and completed 18 years of their age and their income shall have to be considered as Rs.6,000/- per month each. Even otherwise, the courts use to consider Rs.3,750/ per month as a notional income for an unskilled labour for the accidents occurred during the year 2006. The Tribunal has also not considered the future prospects,

¶108

-15-

¶109

which is required to be considered. Even the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 ACJ 2700 has considered 50% of the income for permanent employees and 40% for others to award compensation. However, the learned counsel has admitted that deducting of 1/3^rd of the income towards personal expenses is not admissible as both the deceased were bachelors and 50% is to be deducted towards their personal expenses. She has further contended that the claimants are also entitled for loss of parental consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses, which requires to be awarded as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General

¶110

Insurance Company v. Nanuram and others , reported in 2018 ACJ 2782 . Hence, prayed for allowing the cross-objections.

¶111

The learned counsel appearing for

¶112

respondent/owner of the motorcycle has supported the

¶113

-16-

¶114

judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in respect of fastening the liability on the insurer and prayed for dismissing the appeal as well as cross-objections against him.

¶115

Upon hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the points arise for consideration of this Court are as under:-

¶116

i) Whether the Tribunal is not justified in fastening the liability on the insurer holding the rash and negligent act on the part of the rider of the motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA-25/W-7695 even though the rider was acquitted in criminal case?

¶117

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

¶118

iii) What order?

¶119

The case of the claimants before the Tribunal

¶120

is that on 21.04.2006 at about 7.30 p.m., both Basavaraj and Manjunath were proceeding on a bicycle,

¶121

-17-

¶122

on P.B. Road, near Gandhi Nagar cross, Dharwad

¶123

towards Navalur on the left side of the road and at that time the motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA-25/W-7695, rode by its rider came from backside towards Hubli from

¶124

Dharwad with a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the bicycle, due to which both the riders were fell down and sustained grievous injuries. They were taken to the hospital and on the way to the hospital, Basavaraj died and in the hospital the said Manjunath also died. To prove the factum of accident, the 1^st claimant in both cases got examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and also got marked six documents as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-6. The claimants have also examined the eyewitnesses to the accident, one Krishna Belagaonkar as P.W.3. The evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 corroborates with each other.

¶125

The insurer contested the case before the Tribunal and in cross-examination, tried to elicit that P.W.3 has turned hostile before the Magistrate. It is

¶126

-18-

¶127

contended by the insurer that P.W.3 has denied statement given by him before the police or Investigating Officer during the investigation. However, the insurer examined the owner of the motorcycle as R.W.1, though he was remained exparte and not contested the case. But he has given his evidence by admitting that he is the owner of the motorcycle bearing No.KA-25/W-7695 and he left his motorcycle in his house and had been to Kolhapur and the said motorcycle was taken by his friend Raju Shivalli and caused the accident. He has stated regarding giving statement before the police and has also given evidence before the Court. The insurer treated this witness as hostile and while crossexamination, the said witness has denied the suggestion that the accident was not at all occurred. The witness examined by the insurer though he was previously placed exparte, but has admitted the causing of accident by his friend through his motorcycle. The insurer has also examined R.W.2, one Allamaprabhu,

¶128

-19-

¶129

who is a Senior Assistant, Insurance Company, Hubli and also got marked documents Ex.R-1/insurance policy, Ex.R-2/certified copy of the judgment of acquittal passed by the Magistrate in criminal case filed by against the rider of the motorcycle, Ex.R.3/depositions of the witness recorded before the Magistrate, Ex.R-4/statement of the complainant and one Suresha Chalavadi and Ex.R-5/statement of one Krishna Belagaonkar in C.C.No.369/2006. On perusal of the records show that a report has been submitted by a private investigator one Sri. K. B. Shellikeri, who was appointed by the insurer, which shows that the said private investigator has collected some statements of witnesses, but the insurer has failed to examine the said investigator before the court and those documents were marked only through R.W.1, who is not an investigator and only an officer of the insurance company. Thereby the documents Ex.R-3 has not been proved by the respondent for taking those contentions

¶130

-20-

¶131

in their defence. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.3 is not useful to the insurance company. As regards judgment of acquittal passed by the Magistrate as against the rider of the motorcycle, all the witnesses were turned hostile and therefore, the Magistrate acquitted the rider of the motorcycle holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case as against the rider beyond all reasonable doubt. Though it is seen from the records that P.W.3, examined before the Tribunal, who was examined as P.W.10 before the Magistrate, has turned hostile in the criminal case stating that he has not witnessed the accident and has not given any statement before the police, but his deposition has not been confronted to P.W.3 in his cross-examination before the Tribunal. Though a suggestion was made by the learned counsel for insurer that he has given evidence by denying he witnessing the accident, but the said suggestion has been denied in his cross-examination and the deposition of said Krishna Belagaonkar has not

¶132

-21-

¶133

been marked through P.W.3 and not got admitted by way of confrontation in his cross-examination, which is required to contradict with the maker under Section 145 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, merely producing the certified copy of the deposition and without confronting the same to P.W.3, it has no evidentiary value before the Court. Even otherwise, the acquittal judgment in criminal case, no way has any impact on the proceedings before the Tribunal. It is entirely altogether different proceedings and the standard of proof in motor vehicle accident case are based upon the preponderance of probabilities but not the standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt that was required in the criminal prosecution. By relying upon the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and R.W.1, the claimants in both cases were successfully able to show that the accident in question was due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-25/W-7695, by its rider. Therefore, the Tribunal, after considering the

¶134

-22-

¶135

evidence on record, has rightly held that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by its rider and has fastened the liability on the insurer, which does not call for any interference. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in favour of the claimants and as against the insurer.

¶136

The next question that arises for

¶137

consideration of this Court is regarding quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in MVC No.289 of 2006 i.e. in MFA Cross Objection No.786 of 2012 wherein the claimants have stated that Basavarajdeceased was an electrician and was earning Rs.6,000/-

¶138

per month. In support of their case, they have not produced any documents to prove the actual income earned by the deceased. However, it is found in the complaint that the deceased was an electrician. In the absence of the documents there is no other option for this Court except to consider the notional income. The Tribunal has considered the notional income of the

¶139

-23-

¶140

deceased at Rs.1,500/- per month which is very meager. Even this Court used to consider Rs.3,750/per month as notional income for an unskilled labour. Therefore, I propose to consider Rs.3,750/-per month as notional income of the deceased. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), a person, who is deceased, below the age of 40 years, 40% of the income shall be considered towards future prospects. Though the counsel for the appellantinsurer objected to the same, the deceased had just completed 18 years and he cannot guess that there will be no future prospects for the deceased. Therefore, I propose to consider 40% of the income of the deceased towards his future prospects which comes to Rs.1,500/totaling to Rs.5,250/- (Rs.3,750 + Rs.1,500) as income per month. The Tribunal though considered the deceased as Bachelor, but has wrongly deducted 1/3^rd of the income towards the deceased’s personal expenditure. If the deceased is bachelor and the

¶141

-24-

¶142

claimants are the parents of the deceased, 50% of the income has to be deducted towards personal expenses. If 50% of Rs.5,250/- is deducted, it comes to Rs.2,625/and multiplied by 12 and adopting multiplier 18, the loss of dependency works out to Rs.5,67,000/(2625x12x18). Thus, the claimants are entitled to Rs.5,67,000/- towards loss of dependency. In view of the death of the deceased in the accident, the claimants being the parents of the deceased have lost their son during their life time. Therefore, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and others reported in 2018 ACJ 2782, Rs.30,000/- each is awarded towards loss of filial consortium and Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards loss of estate and a sum of Rs.15,000/is awarded towards funeral and transportation charges. In all, the cross-objectorsclaimants are entitled to reassessed compensation as under:

¶143

-25-

¶144

Rs.

¶145

1	Loss ofdependency	5,67,000/-
2	Towards filial consortium Rs.30,000x2	60,000/-
3	Towardsloss ofestate	15,000/-
4	Towards funeral and transportationcharges	15,000/-
	TOTAL	6,57,000/

¶146

Accordingly, the claimants in MVC No.289 of

¶147

2006 i.e. in MFA Crob No.786 of 2012 are entitled to

¶148

reassessed compensation of Rs.6,57,000/-.

¶149

As regards compensation awarded in MVC No.290 of 2006 pertaining to MFA Cross Objection No.787 of 2012, it is also a case of death. Deceased Manjunath is also said to be an electrician earning Rs.6,000/- per month. In this case also, the claimants were not able to prove the income. In the absence of the documents, there is no other option for this Court except to consider the notional income. The Tribunal has considered the notional income of the deceased at

¶150

-26-

¶151

Rs.1,500/- per month which is very meager. Even this Court used to consider Rs.3,750/- per month as notional income for an unskilled labour. Therefore, I propose to consider Rs.3,750/- per month as notional income of the deceased. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), deceased, who was below the age of 40 years, 40% of the income shall be considered towards future prospects. Therefore, I propose to consider 40% of the income of the deceased towards his future prospects which comes to Rs.1,500/- totaling to Rs.5,250/(Rs.3,750 + Rs.1,500) as income per month. In this case also, the deceased was a Bachelor and the claimants being the parents of the deceased, 50% of the income has to be deducted towards personal expenses. If 50% of Rs.5,250/- is deducted, it comes to Rs.2,625/and multiplying by 12 and adopting multiplier 18, the loss of dependency works out to Rs.5,67,000/(2625x12x18). Thus, the claimants are entitled to

¶152

-27-

¶153

Rs.5,67,000/- towards loss of dependency. In view of the death of the deceased in the accident, the claimants, being the parents of the deceased, have lost their son during their life time. Therefore, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and others reported in 2018 ACJ 2782, Rs.30,000/- each is awarded towards loss of filial consortium and Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards loss of estate and a sum of Rs.15,000/is awarded towards funeral and transportation charges. In all, the cross-objectorsclaimants are entitled to reassessed compensation as

¶154

under:

¶155

		Rs.
1	Loss of dependency	5,67,000/-
2	Towards filial consortium	60,000/-
	Rs.30,000x2
3	Towards loss of estate	15,000/-
4	Towards funeral and transportation charges	15,000/-
	TOTAL	6,57,000/-

¶156

-28-

¶157

Accordingly, the cross objectors-claimants in MFA Cross objection No.787 of 2012 are entitled to reassessed compensation of Rs.6,57,000/and consequently, the appeals filed by the insurer are liable to be dismissed.

¶158

Consequently, MFA Nos.24133 of 2010 and 24134 of 2010 filed by the insurer are dismissed.

¶159

MFA Cross Objection Nos.786 of 2012 and 787 of 2012 are allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 05.05.2010 passed by the I Additional civil Judge (Senior Division) and AMACT, Dharwad, in MVC Nos.289 of 2006 and 290 of 2006, is modified. The cross objectors in both the cross objections are entitled to Rs.6,57,000/- each together with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The insurer is directed to deposit the reassessed compensation within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶160

-29-

¶161

Apportionment and disbursement made by the

¶162

Tribunal is not disturbed.

¶163

Amount in deposit and the LCR is ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith.

¶164

In view of the disposal of the appeals, pending I.As. become infructuous. Hence, dismissed.

¶165

Sd/-