(Prayer: This appeal is filled under Section 173(1) of the MV Act, 1988, against the judgment and award dated 25.03.2013, passed in MVC.No.1630/2011, on the file of II Addl. District Judge, Belgaum, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeing enhancement of compensation.)
S. Raghvendra Chauhan, J.
1. Aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the learned II Addl. District Judge, Belgaum, dated 25.03.2013, passed in MVC.No.1630/2011, and hoping for enhancement of the compensation, the appellants have approached this Court. By the impugned award, the learned Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.5,33,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 14.02.2011, Adil, son of the appellants, was riding a motorcycle and proceeding from Narayan Wadi, Taluk Karhad. At about 10.30 p.m., near Mohite colony on Wattar Retre Budruk, within the limits of Retre, a truck dumper, bearing registration No. MH-06/AQ-8364, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motorcycle. Consequently, Adil suffered fatal head injuries. He was immediately shifted to Krishna Hospital at Karhad. During the course of treatment, he expired. Since the parents lost their son, and one who contributed to the family finances, they filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal. In order to buttress their case, they examined a single witness, and submitted fourteen documents. Although the Insurance Company did not lead any oral evidence, it did submit the insurance policy as a document. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal had granted the compensation as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal before this Court.
3. Relying on the cases of Amrit Bhanu Shali and others Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd., and others (2012 ACJ 2002) and Munna Lal Jain and another Versus Vipin Kumar Sharma and others (2015 ACJ 1985), Mr. Madan Mohan Khannur, the learned Counsel for the appellants, has pleaded that even in the case of death of a bachelor, the multiplier should be selected on the basis of the age of the deceased, and not on the basis of the age of one of the parents. However, the learned Tribunal has taken the age of the mother in order to select the multiplier, and has applied the multiplier of 13 , whereas, if the age of the deceased, namely 22 years, is taken, the multiplier should have been taken as 18 . Therefore, while calculating the loss of dependency , a wrong multiplier has been applied by the learned Tribunal. Hence, the loss of dependency needs to be re-calculated by applying the multiplier of 18 .
Secondly, although the appellants had pleaded that deceased Adil was both, a student, and a partner in M/S. Adil Cashew Industries, even if the said facts were not established, even then the loss of future income should have been calculated by the learned Tribunal. However, the learned Tribunal has not granted any compensation for loss of future income to the appellants.
Thirdly, although the parents have lost their son merely Rs. 25,000/- has been granted in the category of loss of love and affection . Again relying on the case of Amrit Bhanu Shali and others (supra), the learned counsel has pleaded that in the said case, each of the parents were granted Rs.50,000/- towards loss of love and affection . Therefore, the appellants deserve to be granted a compensation of 1 lakh for the said category. Hence, the award deserves to be interfered with by this Court.
4. On the other hand, Mr. G. N. Raichur, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, has pleaded that in catena of cases, the Honourable Supreme Court has clearly opined that in case of a bachelor, the multiplier should be based upon the age of the mother who generally happens to be younger than the father. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was justified in taking the age of the mother in order to select the multiplier.
Secondly, the issue whether in a case of Bachelor, future loss of income should be granted or not, is an issue pending before the Larger Bench of Honourable Supreme Court. Moreover, the learned Tribunal has given cogent reasons for denying the loss of future income to the appellants in the present case. Thus, the learned Tribunal is justified in denying to grant loss of future income to the appellants.
Thirdly, the appellants have failed to make out any ground for seeking loss of future income , as they have failed to establish the fact that Adil was either working as a partner in a Partnership firm, or was a student, as a claimed by them. Therefore, the impugned order should be confirmed; the appeal should be dismissed by this Court.
Lastly, a compensation is not meant to be a bonanza for the appellants; the grant of Rs. 25,000/- for loss of love and affection for a son is a reasonable and just amount.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the impugned award.
6. As far back as in 2012, in the case of Amrit Bhanu shali and others (supra), the Honourable Court had opined that the selection of multiplier is based on the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of the dependant. There may be a number of dependants of the deceased whose age may be different and, therefore, the age of dependants has no nexus with the computation of compensation . Moreover, in catena of cases, the Honourable Supreme Court has opined that, the II Schedule attached to the Motor vehicles Act, clearly prescribes that it is the age of the deceased which should be taken as the basis for selecting the multiplier. Thus, even in the case of a bachelor the same principle should be followed. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was not justified in taking the age of the mother as the basis for selecting and applying the multiplier of 13 . In fact, it is Adli s age, which should have been taken into account. Since he was a 22 year old young man, the correct multiplier to be applied would have been 18 . Therefore, the multiplier of 18 should have been adopted while calculating the loss of dependency .
7. The learned Tribunal has taken the Adil s income as Rs. 6,000/- per month, deducting 50% there from, it has taken his contribution to the family as Rs. 3,000/- per month. Therefore, the loss of dependency needs to be re-calculated as Rs. 3,000 x 12 x 18 = Rs. 6,48,000/-. Hence, the compensation in the category of loss of dependency is enhanced from Rs. 4,68,000/- to Rs. 6,48,000/-.
8. Although, it is true that the issue with regard to the payment of loss of future income is presently sub-judice before the Larger Bench of the Hounourable Supreme Court, however, in the case of Amrit Bhanu Shali and others (supra), after taking note of the fact that the issue is, indeed, sub judice before the Larger Bench, even then the Honourable Supreme Court has granted the benefit of loss of future income . Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondent is not justified in claiming that as long as the said issue is sub-judice before the Larger Bench, this Court is prevented from granting any compensation for the loss of future income .
9. Of course, the learned counsel for the respondent has pleaded that the appellants could not make out any ground for seeking the loss of future income due to the death of their son, as they failed to prove that he was either a student, or a partner in Partnership Firm as claimed by them. However, the fact cannot be ignored that the Adil was 22 years old at the time of his death, that he was hale and healthy, according to the appellants. Therefore, he would have been employed had he survived the accident. Thus, there is a great possibility that he would have earned even in the future. Considering the fact that the learned Tribunal has taken his notional income as Rs. 6,000/-, and deducting 50% thereof, obviously he would have continued to notionally earn some income even in the future. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact the appellants could not prove their pleas, still they would be entitled to receive a compensation for the loss of future income .
10. Indeed, in para-12 of the impugned award, the learned Tribunal has distinguished the present case from those cases relied upon by the appellants. However, the approach of the learned Tribunal is highly misplaced. The learned Tribunal has distinguished the present case on factual matrix. However, once a principle of law has been laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court, it is that principle which needs to be applied to the case. Therefore, the learned Tribunal is unjustified in claiming that merely because in some of the cases cited at the Bar the deceased was brilliant, or a meritorious student, therefore, the loss of future income was granted. The said conclusion is misplaced. The grant of compensation for loss of future income does not necessarily depend upon the brilliance , or meritorious performance of the deceased. Even a bachelor who may not be brilliant, or meritorious in his studies, is presumed to be gainfully employable in his adult life. Therefore, the analysis done by the learned Tribunal in order to deny the benefit of compensation in the category of loss of future income is clearly untenable.
11. Taking the loss of dependency as Rs. 6,48,000/-, and deducting 50% from the said amount, the loss of future income , comes out to Rs. 3,24,000/-. Therefore, this Court grant the compensation of the said amount to the appellants for the loss of future income suffered by them.
12. Needless to say, the gap left by the death of a young son cannot be fulfilled by monetary compensation. However, keeping in mind the great void by a sudden death, the compensation of Rs. 25,000/- for the loss of love and affection is certainly on the lower side. In the case of Amrit Bhanu Shali and Others (supra), a case decided in 2012, the Honourable Supreme Court had directed that each parent would be entitled to receive Rs. 50,000/- for the said category. Therefore, the compensation for the category of loss of love and affection is hereby enhanced from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 1 lakh.
13. The amount awarded by the learned Tribunal under other categories is just and proper. Thus, the claimants-appellants are entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs. 5,79,000/- which is as under:
| Compensation under different | As awarded by the Tribunal | As awarded by this Court |
| Loss of dependency | 4,68,000/- | 6,48,000/- |
| Transportation of funeral | 15,000/- | 15,000/- |
| Loss of future income | 3,24,000/- | |
| Loss of love and affection | 25,000/- | 1,00,000/- |
| Loss of Estate | 25,000/- | 25,000/- |
| Total | 5,33,000/- | 11,12,000/- |