Datasets:

vegeta

/

nlplegal

like 0

deceased and (iii) The Multiplier to be applied with

reference to the age of the deceased as held in the case of

Sarala Verma, 2009 ACJ 1298.

32. In the present case the income of the deceased

is considered as Rs.6,000/- per month which comes to

Rs.72,000/- per annum. The income of the deceased is

below the taxable income. The deceased was aged about

30 years as on the date of the accident.

33. As per the above said decisions it is held that,

50 percent of actual income (after deduction of tax) for

persons below 40 years, 30 percent for the age group of

40 to 50 years, 15 percent for age group of 50 to 60 years

has to be considered for addition of future income and no

addition thereafter. As per above cited decision, 50% of

the income of the deceased is to be added to her monthly

income. If the 50% of the income is added then, it comes

to (Rs.6,000/- + Rs.3,000/-) Rs.9,000/- per month.

Admittedly, the deceased was a married person and

35 SCCH-24

M.V.C.4650/2015 C/w 4651/2015

petitioners were her dependants. Thus, if 1/3rd of the

income is deducted towards her personal and living

expenses, then the total income of the deceased comes to

Rs.6,000/- per month and Rs.72,000/- per annum.

Hence, as per the decision reported in 2009 ACJ 1298

between Sarala Verma & Others V/s Delhi Transport

Corporation and others the appropriate multiplier is '17'.

So the Loss of dependency works out to (Rs.6,000/- X

12 X 17) Rs.12,24,000/-.

34. The petitioner No.1 and 2 are the son and

daughter of the deceased Swetha. They have lost love

and affection of their mother in their early age. Taking

into consideration of the said fact, this Tribunal is of the

considered view that, it would be just and proper to

award a compensation of Rs.50,000/- under the head

Loss of love and affection.

35. It is the evidence of P.W.2 that, after the

postmortem the body handed over to them for performing

36 SCCH-24

M.V.C.4650/2015 C/w 4651/2015

the last rights. The post Mortem was conducted at

Victoria Hospital. She further deposed, she has

transported the body to their native place and incurred a

sum of Rs.50,000/- towards transportation of dead body,

funeral and obsequies. No documents forthcoming for

having spent money towards transportation of dead body,

funeral obsequies ceremony expenses. It is pertinent to

note that, the petitioners must have spent money

towards transportation of body from the Hospital to

resident and from there to the burial ground and must

have spent money for funeral and obsequies ceremony.

Hence, in the absence of proof, a sum of Rs.5,000/- is

awarded towards Transportation of body and a sum of

Rs.10,000/- is awarded under the head Funeral and

obsequies ceremony. Thus, the petitioners are entitled

for the compensation under the following heads:

37 SCCH-24

M.V.C.4650/2015 C/w 4651/2015

1. Loss of dependency. Rs.12,24,000/-

2. Loss of love and affection. Rs. 50,000/-

3. Transportation expenses. Rs. 5,000/-

4. Funeral and obsequies Rs. 10,000/-

ceremony.

Total Rs.12,89,000/-

So, the petitioners are entitled for compensation of

Rs.12,89,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Eighty Nine

Thousand only) with interest at the rate of 8% per annum

from the date of petition, till the date of realisation.

36. It is held supra by this Tribunal that, the

accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent

driving of the BBMP Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-02-AD-

8658 by it's driver. Respondent No.1 is the R.C. Owner

who submitted that, respondent No.2 is the insurer of the

Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-02-AD-8658. But respondent

No.2 has denied the issuance of policy in respect of the

said lorry. Except the denial and suggestions it has not

examined any witness not produced any documents

before this Tribunal. Hence, Respondent No.1 and 2

38 SCCH-24

M.V.C.4650/2015 C/w 4651/2015

being the RC Owner and insurer of the said offending

vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the

compensation to the petitioner. Respondent No.2 shall

indemnify the insured. Accordingly, issue No.2 is

answered partly in the affirmative.

ISSUE No.3 in MVC-4650/2015 and 4651/2015 :

37. For the foregoing reasons and the discussions

as stated above, the petition filed by the petitioners in

M.V.C.4650/2015 and M.V.C.4651/2015 deserve to be

allowed in part with costs.

In result, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The Claim Petition filed in

M.V.C.4650/2015 by the petitioners

U/s.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is

hereby allowed in part with costs.

The petitioners are awarded a total

compensation of Rs.12,09,800/-

(Rupees Twelve Lakhs Nine

Thousand Eight Hundred only) with