AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the claimants is directed against the judgment and award dated 20th June 2008, passed in MVC No. 12/2007, by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn) & Member, Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hiriyur, (for short, ''Tribunal'') for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 2,41,200/- awarded in favour of the claimants as against their claim for Rs. 8,00,000/-, is inadequate. The facts in brief are that, the claimants are the husband and major son of deceased Jaladamma. They filed the claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that at about 3:00 P.M. on 09-09-2006, when the deceased Jaladamma was moving in a Hero Honda Motor cycle as a pillion rider from Hiriyur to reach Nerlagunte village, near Kasthru Rangappanahalli village, the rider of the Motor cycle drove the said vehicle at high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and capsized on the road. Due to the impact, she sustained grievous injuries and therefore, she was immediately shifted to General Hospital, Hiriyur. On the advise of the Doctor she was again shifted to Bapuji Hospital, Davangere. Thereafter, she was shifted to NIMHANS Hospital, Bangalore, but unfortunately, she died on the way to the Hospital.
It is the case of the appellants that, the deceased was aged about 54 years and doing milk vending business and tailoring, earning a sum of Rs. 6,000/- per month and was hale and healthy prior to the accident. On account of the untimely death of the deceased late Jaladamma, the claimants/appellants have lost the love and affection, social and moral support apart and therefore, they have to be compensated reasonably.
On account of the death of the deceased Jaladamma, the appellants filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, seeking compensation against the respondents. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 20th June, 2008. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, awarding a sum of Rs. 2,41,200/- under different heads, with 6% interest per annum, from the date of petition till the date of payment. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants are in appeal before this Court, seeking enhancement of compensation.
We have gone through the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal and heard learned counsel appearing for appellants and learned counsel appearing for Insurer, for quite some time.
Learned counsel appearing for appellants, at the outset submitted that the Tribunal grossly erred in assessing the income of the deceased at only Rs. 80/- per day or Rs. 2,400/- per month. The same is on the lower side and liable to be re-assessed. Further, he submitted that the Tribunal also erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards conventional heads. Therefore, the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal is liable to be modified by enhancing the compensation reasonably.
As against this, learned counsel appearing for Insurer sought to justify the impugned judgment and award stating that the same is passed after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file and the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased having regard to her age, avocation and the year of accident. Further, he submitted that, in fact, the Tribunal grossly erred in deducting 1/3rd towards the persons expenses instead of 50% since the claimants are husband and major son of the deceased Jaladamma.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, and after careful perusal of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the only point that arise for our consideration in this appeal is,
Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal is just and reasonable?
The undisputed facts of the case are the occurrence of accident and the resultant death of the deceased. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was aged about 54 years and doing milk vending and tailoring work. It is stated that she was earning not less than Rs. 6,000/- per month. But, to substantiate the same, the appellants have not produced any credible documentary evidence. But, it can be seen that the Tribunal is also not justified in assessing the income of the deceased at only Rs. 3,000/- per month. The same is on the lower side and needs to be re-assessed. The accident is of the year 2006. Therefore, having regard to the age, avocation, number of dependents and also the year of accident, we re-assess the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,000/- per month. But, the Tribunal has erred in deducting 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased. The deceased is the wife and the husband is not dependent on the income of the wife. Therefore, having regard to the number of dependents being two, i.e. husband and major son, we deduct 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased. Accordingly, if 50% (i.e. Rs. 2,000/-) is deducted from Rs. 4,000/- towards her personal expenses, the net income would be Rs. 2,000/- per month. The deceased is the wife and therefore, the age of the husband has to be taken into consideration. The age of the husband was 60 years as on the date of accident. Therefore, the proper multiplier applicable is ''9'' as against ''11'' adopted by Tribunal. Thus, the compensation towards loss of estate would work out to Rs. 2,16,000/- (i.e. Rs. 2,000/- x. 12 x ''9'') as against the compensation awarded by Tribunal towards loss of dependency.
Further, the Tribunal has erred in awarding a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards conventional heads. The same is on the lower side. As per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma''s case (supra), we award a sum of Rs. 45,000/- towards conventional heads, such as loss of estate, loss of love and affection and transportation and funeral expenses as against Rs. 30,000/- awarded by Tribunal. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the appeal filed by appellant is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 20th June 2008, passed in MVC No. 12/2007, by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn) & Member, Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hiriyur, is hereby modified, awarding a sum of Rs. 2,61,000/- as against Rs. 2,41,200/- awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at 6% per annum on the enhanced sum, from the date of petition till the date of realization. Thus, there would be enhancement of compensation by a sum of Rs. 19,800/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.
The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 19,800/-, with interest thereon at 6% per annum, within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment.
Immediately on such deposit by the Insurance Company, the entire sum shall be released in favour of the first appellant, immediately.
Office to draw award, accordingly.