SMT MANJULA v. M/S RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD

This claimants cross objection 127/2014 in MFA 2915/2013 challenges the judgment and award dated 03.12.2012 made by MACT Bengalur, (SCCH 15) allowing their claim in MVC No.549/2011, whereby a compensation of Rs.5,91,600/- with 6% annual interest thereon has been awarded. The challenge is on the ground of inadequacy of compensation.

2. The brief facts stated are: In a vehicular accident that happened on 12.12.2010 because of rash and negligent driving of the offending Lorry bearing registration No.MH-04/DS- 8040, the boy aged 17 years sustained fatal injuries and lost life. The claim petition in MVC No.549/2011 by the parents of the deceased was stoutly opposed by the Insurer by filing the Written Statement. The MACT after looking to the pleadings of the parties and after weighing the evidence on record, has entered the impugned judgment and award. (The challenge by the Insurer in MFA No.2915/2013 has already been negatived).

3. The learned counsel for the claimants contends that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi and others - (AIR 2017 SC 5157), and Hem Raj v. the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., - (2018 ACJ 5), there has to be an addition of 40% even to the notional income of the deceased, which was taken at Rs.4,000/-. He also presses for enhancement of the notional income from Rs.4,000/- to Rs.5,000/- regard being had to the then contemporary wage standards and the Consumer Index Values.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Insurer vehemently opposes the same, on the ground that the principle of addition is confined to cases of permanent employment and proven salary and to the cases involving notional income. He also opposes any enhancement of notional monthly income of the deceased boy stating that what is already been considered by the Tribunal on the basis of the evidentiary material may not warrant indulgence.

5. I have considered the rival contentions at the Bar. It is true that at a first blush the contention of the learned counsel for the Insurer based upon the text of Para 61 of the judgment of Apex Court in Pranay Sethis case, appears to be attractive. However, the ratio in Pranay Sethi has been considered by the Apex Court in a subsequent judgment in the case of Hem Raj, wherein, it is held that the principle of addition is invokable even in the cases of notional income as distinguished from proven salary from a permanent job. Therefore, 40% addition has to be made to the notional income.

6. Thus, with the altered value, namely, the notional monthly income of the deceased taken by the MACT at Rs.4,000/- being enhanced to Rs.7,000/-, the compensation has been re-worked out as under: Rs.7,000/- x 12 x 18 x 50% = Rs.7,56,000/- To this is added another sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation under the conventional head. The same, in all comes to Rs.7,86,000/-.

7. No other contention having been urged, the cross- objection by the claimants is favoured; the impugned Judgment and Award of the MACT is modified by enhancing the compensation from Rs.5,91,600/- to Rs.7,86,000/- (Seven lakh and eighty six thousand Rupees) only, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional MACT for disbursement by way of compensation to the claimants, forthwith. Similarly the LCR shall also be sent back to the Tribunal, immediately. Sd/- JUDGE SBS*