Bilkish Vs. United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. & ANR [2008] INSC 421 (12 March 2008)
A.K.Mathur & Altamas Kabir
Civil Appeal No. 6313 of
2001 A.K.Mathur, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 11.7.2000 passed by the
Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court whereby the Division Bench has
ordered the compensation in sum of Rs. 1,65,000/- towards dependency and Rs.
10,000/- for the loss of estate & funeral expenses. Aggrieved against this
order, the present appeal was preferred by the appellant for suitable
enhancement of the compensation.
Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as
under:
2. That one Hazi Mohammed Haneef died in a motor accident on 30.3.1993 when
a tempo bearing No. CAA 6591 dashed against the motorcycle (KA-01-H-7054) which
he was riding. He ultimately succumbed to injuries and died. Therefore, the
claimants (the parents of the deceased) filed MVC No. 1039/1993 claiming
compensation of Rs.15,12,000/- under the various heads. The Tribunal allowed
the claim petition in part by judgment and award dated 23.9.1996 and held that
accident took place due to negligent driving of the tempo bearing No. CAA 6591
and held that claimants were entitled to compensation of Rs.1,75,000/- with
interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition to the date of realization. The
compensation amount awarded in sum of Rs. 1,65,000/- towards loss of dependency
and Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate & funeral expenses.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the deceased was 20
years of age and was a bachelor. His parents were aged 47 years and 42 years
respectively. The deceased was studying in First Year B.Com. course and he was
also the proprietor of a business carried under the name and style of H.S.
Traders and was an income-tax assessee. The deceased had an income of Rs.
31,494/- in his business and had paid the income-tax on that. The Tribunal had
erroneously deducted 50% towards his personal, living expenses and the
contribution to the family/dependency worked out to Rs.15,000/- per annum. The Tribunal applied multiplier of 11, looking to the
age of the parents and arrived at the total loss of dependency at Rs.
1,65,000/-. Learned counsel submitted that the assessment made by the Tribunal
and affirmed by the High Court was totally erroneous. The incumbent was a
bachelor, therefore, he could not spend 50% of his income on himself. But
three-fourth of the income was contributed to the family and , therefore, the
dependency assessed by the Tribunal and by the High Court for a sum of Rs.15,000/- was not correct. It was also submitted that the multiplier of 11
applied by the Tribunal was also not correct.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that
the view taken by the High Court & Tribunal is not correct. The incumbent
was a bachelor and he could not have spent more than 1/3rd of his total income
for personal use and rest of the amount earned by him would certainly go to the
family kitty. Therefore, determining the loss of dependency by 50% was not correct.
Therefore, we assess that he must be spending 1/3rd towards personal use and
contributing 2/3rd of his income to his family. Therefore, we work out that Rs. 30,000/- earned by him per annum. The loss of dependency was 2/3rd i.e. Rs. 20,000/- . The multiplier of '11'
applied for loss of dependency was also not correct and as per schedule
appended to the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 it should be '12'. Applying the multiplier of 12 the
total loss of dependency will be Rs. 20,000/-x 12 = Rs. 2,40,000/- and Rs,
10,000/- towards loss of estate & funeral expenses, the total compensation
comes to Rs. 2,50,000/- and incumbent is entitled for interest @ 9/% per annum
from the date of the petition. The appeal is allowed with the aforesaid
modification. If any amount had already been paid to the claimant then that
amount may be deducted from the total amount. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part with no order as to costs.
Back
