Smt. G. Komala Vs Managing Director

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.10.15 PASSED IN MVC NO.438/14 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MACT, MALUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶24

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

Heard Smt.Suguna R. Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants. Though Sri.Bopanna and Sri.Satheesh H.K. are on record representing the respondent, learned counsel failed to make their appearance.

¶28

Aggrieved by the sum that is awarded as compensation by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Malur, through orders in MVC No.438/2014 dated 17.10.2015, the claimants therein are before this Court by way of appeal.

¶29

The first appellant being the wife, appellants 2 and

¶30

3 being the children and appellant No.4 being the father of the

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6984 MFA No. 285 of 2016

¶32

deceased C.V. Gopalappa (hereinafter be referred to as the 'deceased' for brevity) filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs.27,00,000/- in total on the ground that the deceased died in a road traffic accident that occurred on 04.07.2011. The Tribunal through the impugned order awarded a sum of Rs.18,22,875/- as compensation. However, projecting that they are entitled to a higher sum, the present appeal is filed.

¶33

Smt.Suguna R. Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants, arguing on merits of the case, contended that the deceased as an agriculturist, by doing real estate business and through running a Trust was earning Rs.10,00,000/- to Rs.11,00,000/- per annum. Learned counsel states that though sufficient proof was produced in respect of the earnings of the deceased and though the Tribunal exhibited its opinion in the impugned order that the over all income of the deceased can be considered as Rs.2,00,000/per annum, however, ultimately took the income of the deceased as Rs.1,74,110/unjustifiably. Learned counsel submits that the Tribunal thereby awarded meager sum as compensation. In that regard, learned counsel placed much reliance upon Exs.P9 and P10acknowledgements issued by Income Tax Department.

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:6984 MFA No. 285 of 2016

¶36

As per the contents of Ex.P9, for the assessment year 2009-2010, the gross total income in respect of the deceased is shown as Rs.2,21,316/-. The deductions under Chapter-VIA is shown as Rs.47,204/- and thereby total income is indicated as Rs.1,74,110/-. Basing on the contents of Ex.P9,

¶37

the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.1,74,110/- per annum. However, a meticulous perusal of contents of Ex.P9 goes to show that the deductions under Chapter - VIA are LIC premium to a tune of Rs.5,828/-, housing loan repayment to a tune of Rs.8,376/- and tuition fee to an extent of Rs.33,000/-, totally Rs.47,204/-. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the appellants such deductions made for assessment of income tax should not be considered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for the purpose of calculation of compensation. Also it is shown that the deceased was earning Rs.40,000/- more as agricultural income. Therefore, as rightly pleaded by learned counsel for the appellants, this Court considers desirable to take the income of the deceased as Rs.2,00,000/- per annum.

¶38

By all the evidence produced it is clear that the

¶39

deceased was aged about 53 years by the date of accident.

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6984 MFA No. 285 of 2016

¶41

Therefore, as per the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, 10% of the earnings are required to be added towards future prospects. The dependants are admittedly four in number. Therefore, 1/4^th of the earnings are required to be deducted towards personal and living expenses which the deceased would have incurred for himself had he been alive as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in 2009 SAR (Civ) 592. Further more, the multiplier to be applied is '11'. Therefore, the compensation which the appellants are entitled to under the head loss of dependency is as under:

¶42

Description	Amount Rs.
Annual income	2,00,000-00
Add 10% towards future prospects (2,00,000+10%)	2,20,000-00
On deducting 1/4^th towards personal and living expenses	1,65,000-00
Loss of dependency, on
applying the appropriate multiplier'11'(1,65,000x11)	18,15,000-00

¶43

Thus, the appellants are entitled to a sum of

¶44

Rs.18,15,000/- under the head loss of dependency.

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:6984 MFA No. 285 of 2016

¶46

6 -

¶47

Together with the said amount, the appellants are also entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. The first appellant being the wife of the deceased is entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium, appellants No.2 and 3 being children of the deceased are entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards loss of parental consortium, appellant No.4 being the father of the deceased is entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards loss of filial consortium. Therefore, the total compensation which the appellants are entitled to is as under:

¶48

Sl. No	Heads of compensation	Amount in Rs.
1	Loss of dependency	18,15,000-00
2	Funeral expenses	15,000-00
3	Towards loss of estate	15,000-00
4	Loss of spousal consortium	40,000-00
5	Loss of parental consortium	40,000-00
6	Loss of filial consortium	40,000-00
	Total	19,65,000-00