H Monika W/O Late Darshan Kalal D/O Jagadeshwar Higolekar And Ors vs. Sanjay Phulari S/O Vishwanath And Anr

Facts

The appellants, the legal heirs of the deceased Darshan Kalal, filed an appeal before the High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench, challenging the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's (MACT) award of Rs.13,72,400/-. The claimants had sought Rs.59,10,000/-. The deceased was allegedly working as a Designer at Sangitha Designer Studio, Hyderabad, earning Rs.15,000/- per month. The claimants presented salary certificates and examined the deceased's employer (PW-2) to establish his income. The MACT, however, disbelieved the employer's testimony and the salary certificates, deeming PW-2's evidence unreliable due to the non-production of relevant registers. Consequently, the MACT took a notional income of Rs.6,000/- per month for calculating compensation.

Held

The High Court allowed the appeal, modifying the Tribunal's award. While acknowledging the Tribunal's finding that the evidence of PW-2 and the salary certificates were not entirely credible due to the non-production of relevant registers, the Court found that the Tribunal erred in taking the deceased's notional income as low as Rs.6,000/- per month. The Court reasoned that this figure was even lower than what would be considered for labourers or coolies, and given the deceased's occupation as an Artist and Designer, a higher notional income was warranted. The Court determined that the notional income should be Rs.10,000/- per month. Applying a 40% addition for future prospects, the annual income was calculated as Rs.1,68,000/-. After deducting 1/4th for personal expenses, the annual dependency amount came to Rs.1,26,000/-. Using a multiplier of 17 (based on the deceased's birth year of 1991), the loss of dependency was computed at Rs.21,42,000/-. This resulted in an enhancement of Rs.9,99,600/- to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The Court also directed the apportionment of the enhanced compensation, giving a larger share to the deceased's wife and differently-abled sister. The enhanced amount was to carry interest at 6% per annum.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in disbelieving the evidence of PW-2 and the salary certificates (Ex.P-17 and P-18) to determine the deceased's monthly income, and if so, what should be the correct monthly income for calculating compensation? This issue turns on the appreciation of evidence and the principles of determining notional income under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Contentions: Petitioner/Appellants: Argued that the Tribunal wrongly disregarded the positive evidence of PW-2 and the salary certificates, which established the deceased's monthly income of Rs.15,000/-. They contended that the Tribunal's adoption of a notional income of Rs.6,000/- per month resulted in a significant loss of compensation. They urged the Court to consider the presented evidence and award appropriate compensation. Revenue/State (Respondent No.2 - Insurance Company): Contended that the Tribunal was justified in disbelieving PW-2's testimony and the related documents. They argued that PW-2 was not the owner of the studio, and no authentic documents like GST numbers were produced to corroborate his association with the studio. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision to take a notional income of Rs.6,000/- per month was justifiable.