Sans proof, even Lok Adalat considers income as Rs 5,500 per month: HC

Income of 17-yearold student is taken at Rs.4,000 as claimed by parents

S Shyam Prasad | NT

Bengaluru: The High Court of Karnataka has said that when there is no income proof of a person, it can be taken as Rs 5,500 per month to determine compensation.

“Even for a person without proof of income, a sum of Rs 5,500 is being considered in the Lok Adalat,” the Division Bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar and Justice TG Shivashankare Gowda noted in their judgment recently.

Vinod, the 17-year-old student, suffered injuries in a road accident on February 22, 2010 near Teerth Cross, Aland, Kalburgi. Despite being treated in a hospital in Aland, he succumbed to his injuries two days later. His parents, Shravankumar Patre and Nirmalabai sought compensation. He was a student and also conducted coaching for juniors earning Rs 4,000 per month.

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, in its order on July 24, 2013 awarded a compensation of Rs 2,82,000 and ruled that the Insurance Company was liable to pay it. The insurance company approached the HC against the order. The parents also approached the HC seeking enhancement of compensation. The HC said that when the parents had claimed that Vinod was earning Rs 4,000 per month, it should have been considered.

But the Tribunal had calculated the compensation assuming his income at Rs 2,000. The HC said, “The deceased was a 17 years old student, he was said to be earning Rs 4,000 per month being a coach. The accident was in 2010. The deceased had grown up to a stage of earning. Even for a person without proof of income, a sum of Rs 5,000 is being considered in the Lok Adalat.

The petitioners in the petition specifically contended that the deceased was earning Rs 4,000 per month and it is just and proper to accept the notional income of the deceased at Rs 4,000 per month at the time of accident.” The HC recalculated the compensation payable to the parents at Rs 8,38,800 which included Rs.6,04,800 under the head of ‘loss of dependency’.

However, the HC found that the Tribunal had erred in directing the insurance company to pay the compensation. Vinod had died while travelling in a jeep as a passenger. The jeep however did not have comprehensive insurance. The Court said the owner and driver of the jeep should pay the compensation. “As we observe, the Tribunal has committed an error in jumping to conclusion that there is an insurance cover and the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation.

Hence, the ground urged by the Insurance Company is tenable, and liability fastened against the Insurance Company is liable to be set aside. The owner of the jeep is liable to pay the compensation.” The owner and driver of the jeep were ordered to pay the compensation with interest within four weeks.