AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.S. Indrakala, J.—The above appeal is preferred against the common judgment and award dated 4.4.2009 passed in MVC No. 94/2008 on the file of the I Addl. Civil Judge, Sr. Dvn., & Addl. MACT, Kolar. It is the case of the claimants that they are the parents and sisters of one Venkatesh who met with the accident on 23.4.2008 and succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said accident. It is alleged by the claimant that on 23.4.2008 while the victim was pillion rider on the motorbike bearing Regn. No. KA-07-L-182 along with its rider Venkatesh S/o. Narayana Swamy proceeding to Kolar and when they were near Dhanamatnahalli-Prasanth Jelly Crusher, the lorry bearing Regn. No. CNG-5585 which was being driven by its driver in rash manner came from Kolar side and dashed against the said two wheeler and caused the accident; in the said accident, both of them sustained grievous injuries and the pillion rider died on the spot. It is further contended by the claimants that the said pillion rider at the time when he met with the accident was aged about 27 years; was doing mason work earning Rs. 10,000/- per month and on account of the untimely death of their son, claimants 1 and 2 being the parents and claimant Nos. 3 and 4 being the sisters of the victim suffered mental agony and was also put to financial loss. In the circumstances, they have sought compensation from the owner and insurer of the said lorry which was involved in the accident.
The respondent/insurer in its statement of objections while admitting the coverage of the policy, pleaded denying the contentions of the claimants with regard to the cause of accident, the age, income of the deceased and specifically pleaded that the liability, if any, is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy.
The appellants along with the claimants in the connected cases got themselves examined as P.Ws. 1 and 3 and got marked documents Exs.P.1 to P.29. The tribunal while allowing both the claim petitions and in particular MVC 94/2008 awarded compensation of Rs. 2,01,600/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation and directed 2nd respondent to indemnify the owner of the vehicle.
Aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the claimants are in appeal interalia contending amongst other grounds that the amount of compensation awarded is inadequate and further contending that the apportionment of liability of the rider of the motorbike on account of his contributory negligence to an extent of 40% is highly improper.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that though the accident occurred involving two vehicles viz., motorbike as well as the lorry, as the victim was a pillion rider, he was not responsible for the accident i.e., in other words, he did not contribute to the accident, the amount deducted towards the contributory negligence of the rider of the motorbike is not warranted. Further, he submitted that with regard to the claimants being the legal representatives of the pillion rider of the vehicle,: the accident occurred on account of the composite negligence of the rider of the motorbike as well as the driver of the lorry, the claimants are entitled to proceed against all or any one of them as both of them are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation and the tribunal ought to have awarded the entire amount calculated by it as compensation without deducting any portion of the said amount towards contributory negligence on the rider of the motorbike.
Further, he submitted considering the age of the victim as 27 years and the year of accident as 2007, the tribunal ought to have calculated the income even notionally at Rs. 5000/- per month and not Rs. 3000/- per month as considered by the tribunal. In the circumstances, he submitted that the amount awarded is too inadequate and seeks enhancement of the same.
Admittedly, the claimants are said to be the legal representatives of the pillion rider of the vehicle involved in the accident in which event basically the findings of the tribunal that the contributory negligence of the rider of the motorbike is to be fixed and the amount awarded towards claimants will have to be reduced to that extent, is not proper. In this case it is to be noted that in relation to the claimants, accident has occurred on account of the composite negligence of the rider of the motorbike as well as the driver of the lorry and as such, no amount can be reduced towards the contributory negligence of the pillion rider of the motorbike.
Admittedly, the age of the victim as on the date of the accident is 27 years and the accident is of the year 2007. In the circumstances, even in the absence of evidence the income of the deceased can be fixed notionally at Rs. 4500/- per month. In the circumstances, considering the fact that the victim was a bachelor and 50% of the said income will have to be deducted towards personal expenditure of the victim himself in which event Rs. 2250/- will have to be taken as the monthly income of the deceased.
Admittedly, claimants 1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased and claimants 3 and 4 are the siblings of the deceased who were aged 17 and 15 years as on the date of the accident. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the siblings were also the dependants of the deceased, in which event, the age of the mother who was said to be aged 40 years at the time of accident will have to be taken into consideration for the purpose of considering the multiplier as per the decision reported in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, and the appropriate multiplier is 15. Thus towards loss of dependency the appellants are entitled Rs. 4,05,000/- (Rs. 4500 - 2250 = 2250 � 12 � 15).
The appellants are also entitled to be compensated under conventional heads like loss of love and affection, loss of estate, towards expenses for funeral and other obsequies etc. and it is reasonable to award Rs. 45,000/- in all towards such conventional heads. Thus, the claimants are entitled to be compensated at Rs. 4,50,000/- as compensation. As already discussed supra in relation to the claimant, since the accident occurred on account of the composite negligence of the drivers of both the vehicles, the claimants are at liberty to proceed against the owner and insurer of both the vehicles or against anyone of them as they are jointly and severally liable and now that the claimant has preferred the appeal only against the owner and insurer of the lorry, they are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation so awarded.
Hence, the following:
ORDER
The above appeal is allowed modifying the impugned judgment and award passed in MVC No. 94/2008 on the file of the 1st Addl. CJ (Sr. Dvn.) and Addl. MACT, Kolar by awarding a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation as against Rs. 2,01,600/- awarded by the tribunal.
The respondent/insurer is directed to deposit the said amount within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of tins order.
On such deposit, appellants 1 and 2 are entitled to Rs. 1,75,000/- each with proportionate interest and Rs. 50,000/- each with proportionate interest is apportioned each in favour of claimant Nos. 3 and 4. Out of the amount so apportioned, a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- each with proportionate interest with regard to the amount apportioned in favour of appellant Nos. 1 and 2 and Rs. 25,000/- each with proportionate interest in favour of appellant Nos. 3 and 4 shall be invested in fixed deposits in the name of respective appellant in any of the nationalized bank of the choice of the claimants for a period of 10 years reserving the liberty to the claimants to withdraw the periodical interest as and when the same accrues.
Balance of Rs. 25,000/- each with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the claimants for their immediate necessities.
Sri R. Jayaprakash, learned counsel for 2nd respondent is permitted to file vakalath within two weeks.