S. Abdul Nazeer, J.@mdashThis appeal by the claimants is directed against the judgment and award in MVC No. 1/2010 dated 8.8.2011 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Belur. The 1st appellant is the wife of one H.R. Arun Kumar. The 2nd appellant is his minor son. The 3rd and 4th respondents are his parents. H.R. Arun Kumar, died in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 18.6.2009. Therefore, appellants and respondents No. 3 and 4 filed the claim petition seeking compensation on account of the death of Arun Kumar.
2. The respondent - insurance company has entered appearance in the case and has filed its statement of objections.
3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed relevant issues. The parties have let in their evidence. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal has held that the driver of the offending vehicle was responsible for the accident. The Tribunal has awarded in a total compensation of Rs. 6,67,000/- with interest at 6% from the date of petition till the date of till realization.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased Arun Kumar had established hair dressing saloon at Belur. He was earning more than Rs. 10,000/- per month.. In fact, he had availed financial assistance from a local bank for establishing the hair dressing saloon. He was self employed. The Tribunal ought to have taken his income at Rs. 10,000/- per month and added 50% of the income towards loss of future prospects. In this connection, he has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in
5. Sri Shripad V. Shastri, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 has supported the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants.
6. On the other hand, Sri M. Narayanappa, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent has sought to justify the impugned judgment and award. It is argued that claimants have not established monthly income of the deceased. The accident had occurred on 18.6.2009. Therefore, the Tribunal has notionally fixed his income at Rs. 4,500/- per month, which is just and proper. It is further contended that he has not entitled for any compensation towards loss of future prospects.
7. I have carefully considered the arguments made at the Bar and the materials placed on record.
8. There is no dispute as to the occurrence of the accident and liability of the insurance company to pay the compensation. Having regard to the contentions urged, the only question for consideration is whether the award of compensation by the Tribunal is adequate?
9. The accident had occurred on 18.6.2009. The deceased was aged about 30 years. The contention of the claimants is that deceased was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. However, no materials have been produced in support of the said contention. It is clear from the materials on record that deceased had established a hair dressing saloon at Belur town. The document at Ex. P5 shows that he had availed financial assistance from bank for the purpose of establishing Hair Dressing saloon. The evidence on record would clearly indicate that the deceased was a self employed person. He had established a saloon at Belur. Therefore, it. is just and proper to take his income at Rs. 200 per day (Rs. 6,000/- per month).
10. In Rajesh''s case (supra), the Apex Court had held that self employed persons are also entitled for addition of 50% of their income towards loss of future prospects. It has been held thus:
Since the Court in Santosh Devi''s case, 2012 ACJ 1428 (SC), actually intended to follow the principle in the case of salaried persons as laid down in Sarla Verma''s case, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) and to make it applicable also to self employed and persons on fixed wages, it is clarified that the increase in the case of those groups is not 30 percent always; it will also have a reference to the age. In other words, in the case of self-employed or persons with fixed wages, in case the deceased victim was below 40 years, there must be an addition of 50 percent to the actual income of the deceased while computing future prospects. Needless to say that the actual income should be income after paying the tax, if any. Addition should be 30 percent in case the deceased was in the age group of 40 to 50 years.
(emphasis supplied by me)
11. Therefore, 50% of his monthly income i.e., Rs. 3,000/- has to be added to his monthly income of Rs. 6,000/- for the purpose of computation of loss of dependency, which comes to Rs. 9,000/- per month. 1/4th of the income has to be deducted towards his personal expenses having regard to the number of dependants left behind by him. After deducting 1/4th of the income towards his personal expenses, the balance comes to Rs. 6,750/- per month. The multiplier applicable to the case is 17. By taking his income at Rs. 6,750/- with application of multiplier 17, the compensation payable towards loss of dependency comes to Rs. 13,77,000/-.
12. I am of the view that the 1st appellant (wife of the deceased) is entitled for a sum of Rs. 50,000/-towards loss of consortium and other claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of love and affection and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards funeral expenses. In all claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs. 14,87,000/-.
13. The Tribunal has totally awarded Rs. 6,67,000/-, which has to be deducted from the aforesaid amount. Thus, the claimants are entitled for a balance compensation of Rs. 8,20,000/-. The said sum of Rs. 8,20,000/- shall carry interest at 6% per annum.
14. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed in part. The respondent-insurance company is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 8,20,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the application till the date of deposit within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Out of the enhanced amount, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- each with accrued interest thereon shall be released in favour of the parents of the deceased (respondent Nos. 3 and 4). They are permitted to withdraw the said amount. A sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in the name of the 1st appellant (wife of the deceased) for a period of five years. She is permitted to withdraw the interest annually. A sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- shall be kept in the name of the 2nd appellant (minor child of the deceased) till he attains the age of 18 years. The 1st appellant is permitted to withdraw the interest annually, which shall be spent for his educational purposes. The 1st appellant is permitted to withdraw the balance of the amount. No costs.
