AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the claimants-appellants is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 16/03/2011 passed in MVC No. 7642/2009, by the XVIII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-4, Bangalore (SCCH-4), (for short ''Tribunal''), for enhancement of compensation, on the ground that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate. The Tribunal by its judgment and award has awarded a sum of Rs. 4,46,052/- under different heads with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, as against the claim of the claimants for a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased Sri. K.S. Gurulingappa, in the road traffic accident.
In brief, the facts of the case are:
The appellant No. 1 is the wife and appellant No. 2 is minor daughter of the deceased Sri. K.S. Gurulingappa. They filed a claim petition before the Tribunal u/s 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation against the respondents on account of the death of the deceased, contending that, on 21.10.2009 at about 6.30 p.m., the deceased was riding the motor cycle bearing Reg. No. CKL 2807 along with one A. Usha as pillion rider from west to east on the extreme left side near Kanteerava Studio in FTI Circle, outer ring road towards Yeshwanthapura, at left turn, at that time, the driver of the milk tanker lorry bearing No. MH. 10.Z.1004 came from opposite direction and suddenly took turn towards west with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle. Due to which, they fell down and sustained grievous injuries and deceased K.S. Gurulingappa died on the spot.
It is the further case of the appellants that, deceased was aged about 46 years, hale and healthy prior to the accident, and earning Rs. 30,000/- per month by working as waterman in CMC (BBMP) an proprietor of SJLS Detective and House keeping and Labour Contractor Security Services and also by cultivating agricultural land and contributing the entire earnings to the family. Due to his untimely death, appellant No. 1 has lost her husband and appellant No. 2 is deprived of the guidance, security and love and affection of her father at her early age and they have also suffered mental pain and agony and rest of their life has become dark miserable and depressed.
The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, in turn, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and other material available on file, has allowed the said claim petition in part, awarding the compensation of Rs. 4,46,052/- under different heads with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants have presented this appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation.
We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned counsel for Insurer.
The submission of the learned counsel for appellants at the out set is that, the Tribunal has erred in not assessing reasonable income of the deceased and what is assessed is on lower side and it is liable to be enhanced. To substantiate the said submission, he submitted that, deceased was aged about 46 years, hale and healthy prior to the accident, working as waterman in CMC(BBMP) and proprietor of SJLS detective and house keeping and labour contractor security services and also cultivating agricultural land and earning Rs. 30,000/- per month. Therefore, he submitted that the income of the deceased may be re-determined reasonably. Further, he submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards conventional heads is inadequate and it requires to be enhanced. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be modified.
As against this, learned counsel for Insurer, inter-alia, contended and substantiated that, the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file and therefore, it does not call for interference.
After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and after careful perusal of the material available on record at threadbare, including the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, it could be seen that, the occurrence of the accident and the resultant death of the deceased are not in dispute. Further, it is not in dispute that, deceased was aged about 46 years and appellants are the wife and daughter of the deceased Further, it emerges that, the Tribunal after assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,000/- per month, which is on lower side and it needs to be enhanced. It is the case of the appellants that deceased was working as waterman in CMC (BBMP) and proprietor of SJLS Detective and House keeping and Labour Contractor Security Services and also cultivating agricultural land and earning Rs. 30,000/- per month. But the appellants have not produced any credible documents to prove his income from all three avocation. Having regard to the age, occupation of the deceased and the year of the accident, we re assess his income at Rs. 5,000/- per month. Out of which, if 1/3rd ( Rs. 1,666/-) is deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, his net income, comes to Rs. 3,334/- per month. The proper multiplier applicable is ''13'' as rightly adopted by the Tribunal. Therefore, we re-determine the loss of dependency at Rs. 5,20,104/- instead of Rs. 4,16,052/- awarded by the Tribunal and accordingly, it is awarded.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we award a sum of Rs. 45,000/- towards conventional heads, such as, loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, loss of estate and towards transportation and funeral expenses instead of Rs. 30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. In all, the appellants are entitled to the total compensation of Rs. 5,65,104/-. There would be an enhancement of Rs. 1,19,052/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants is allowed in part. The impugned dated 16/03/2011 passed in MVC No. 7642/2009, by the XVIII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-4, Bangalore (SCCH-4), is hereby modified, awarding the compensation of Rs. 1,19,052/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization, in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
The first respondent-Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,19,052/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Immediately on deposit by the Insurer, out of the enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,19,052/-, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank, in the name of appellant No. 1 for a period of five years and renewable by another five years, with liberty reserved to her to withdraw the interest accrued on it, periodically.
A sum of Rs. 50,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank, in the name of appellant No. 2 till she ) attains 30 years, with liberty reserved to the appellant No. 1 to withdraw the interest accrued on it, periodically, for the welfare of appellant No. 2, till she attains 21 years and from 22 years to 30 years, appellant No. 2 is at liberty to withdraw the interest accrued on it periodically.
The remaining sum of Rs. 19,052/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the appellant No. 1 immediately.
Draw the award, accordingly.