Basavaraj vs Shaikh Arif

Ravi V. Malimath, J.—The case of the claimants is that on 18-5-1988 when the deceased was travelling as a passenger in the Maxi Cab bearing No. KA 28/3303 from Devarahipparagi to Bijapur, a truck bearing No. KA-33/1421 came and dashed against the Maxi cab and the Maxi cab turned turtle. The deceased sustained severe injuries, he fell on hot water radiator and sustained injuries all over the body. Hence, he filed MVC No. 804/1998. By the order dated 25-8-2006, the MACT awarded a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- for the injuries. He died on 27-9-1999. An appeal was filed by the respondent insurer in MFA No. 26/2007. By the order dated 5-7-2007 the impugned Judgment and award of the tribunal was set aside and the matter was sent back to the tribunal for "reconsideration. On remand the impugned order has been passed awarding compensation of Rs. 1,09,500/- along with interest. Seeking enhancement the present appeal is filed.

The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the tribunal having held that there is a nexus between the accident and the cause of death, has failed to award any amount towards loss of dependency. The amount awarded towards other heads are inadequate.

Smt. Preeti Patil, the learned counsel appearing for the insurer defends the impugned order. She submits that there is no plea for compensation on the ground of loss of dependency. That the claim set up is only for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Hence, the Judgment is appropriate.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para-16 of the Judgment in the case of Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, have held that irrespective of the claim made, the Court shall always determine a just compensation to be granted. Therefore even if the claim is made for a lesser sum, it is the duty of the Court to award such compensation as is just and appropriate. Following the said Judgment both the contentions of the insurer are rejected. Not to award compensation on the head which is not claimed by the claimant, is highly inappropriate. The same would have to be necessarily considered while awarding a just compensation.

On hearing learned counsels, I am of the considered view that the appropriate relief requires to be granted. It is a case of death. The claimants are the wife and the two minor children of the deceased. The deceased was stated to be a coolie working with the tractor. The accident took place on 18-5-1998. Hence, it will be appropriate to hold his income at Rs. 3,000/- per month. He was aged 25 years in terms of the wound certificate Ex.P-5. Hence, the appropriate multiplier should be 18. Hence, the loss of dependency is worked out as follows:-

1/3rd x 3000 x 12 x 18=Rs. 4,32,000/-

The amount awarded towards pain and suffering and mental agony is deleted. Medical expenses and attendant charges, diet, conveyance and incidental charges is appropriate and undisturbed in view of the fact that he would have incurred these expenses before he died 45 days after the accident. The amount awarded towards loss of estate is deleted. He was in the hospital for 45 days. Hence, Rs. 4,500/- is granted towards loss of income during treatment period. The amount towards the treatment period is deleted. A sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- is awarded towards consortium. A sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses and a sum of Rs. 15,000/- to each of the claimants towards loss of love and affection. The compensation now awarded is as follows:-

Hence, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced by Rs. 5,17,000/- (Rs. 6,26,500/- less Rs. 1,09,500/-) along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of the realisation and shall be paid within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.