AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ram Mohan Reddy, J.—This appeal though listed for admission with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, is finally heard and disposed of by this judgment.
In the accident that occurred on 17-8-2013 involving the bus belonging to the appellant road Transport Corporation, one Somashekhar, aged 36, a daily wage worker succumbed to grievous injuries and left behind 1st respondent-widow, three minor daughters respondents 2 to 4 and aged parents respondents 5 and 6. In the claim petition registered as MVC 870/2013, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, at Mysuru, (In the Court of the Addl. Judge, Small Causes and Senior Civil Judge, Mysuru), for short �MACT�, having regard to the material on record and the evidence, both oral and documentary, determined compensation of Rs. 14,20,000/- by reckoning Rs. 6,000/- as the monthly income of the deceased to assess loss of dependency, to which was added compensation under the conventional heads, by the Judgment and award dated 27-12-2014. Hence, this appeal by the KRTC.
The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the MACT was not justified in adding future prospects towards loss of dependency, award of hefty sums under the non-pecuniary damages and interest at 9% p.a. calls for interference.
It is well established law that future prospects is an addition in case where the deceased is in a stable employment having a regular income, which by no stretch of imagination can be extended to a daily wage earner. The MACT was not justified in including future prospects to determine loss of dependency.
Although learned counsel for the claimants submits that the deceased was earning Rs. 300/- to 500/- everyday, that argument is one in vacuum, since there is no material worth-the-while to establish the said fact. In the Lok-Adalat, it is now recognised that a daily wage worker would earn at least Rs. 8,000/- per month during the year 2013 and the accident having occurred on 17-8-2013, it is appropriate to reckon Rs. 8,000/- as the monthly income of the deceased. Deceased left behind a young widow and three minor daughters, as well as aged parents, in all six members. In that view of the matter, it is appropriate to deduct ⅕th from out of the monthly income of the deceased towards personal and living expenses. It is useful to notice that although several judgments have observed that ⅕th could be deducted as personal and living expenses only if number of dependents are more than six, nevertheless having regard to the fact situation that three minor girls are dependents, it is appropriate to apply deduction of ⅕th.
The monthly loss of income is Rs. 6,400/- (8000/- x 1/5 = 1,600/-). To the annual loss applying multiplier �15� as applicable to the age 36 of the deceased, the total loss of dependency is Rs. 11,52,000/-. Regard being had to the decision in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others, (2013) 9 SCC 54 award of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium for the widow and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of care and guidance for the minor girls is just and proper. Awarding Rs. 25,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses and Rs. 10,000/- towards loss to estate, in the circumstances, is just and reasonable.
It is no doubt true that the rate of interest applicable to awards passed by the MACT ought not to exceed 6% p.a. The MACT has not assigned any reason to award interest at 9% p.a. contrary to the decision of the Division Bench in Smt. P. Ramadevi v. Sri C.B. Saikrishna and others, AIR 1994 Kar 8 whence it is held that compensation paid is for pecuniary or non-pecuniary loss and the interest awarded is for delayed payment of such compensation while compensation, is an amount paid in advance for loss of life or loss of dependency or loss of earnings, not being a debt, qualifies for interest at 6% per annum.
Learned counsel points to the decision of another co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court in Managing Director, Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. v. Geetha and others, AIR 1989 Kar 104 whence it was held thus:
"13. xxx Generally speaking a composite rate of 6% should be considered satisfactory without any specific itemization because the component of compensation in the �interest poof is comparatively smaller and the sizable component is the amount awarded for the loss of future dependency. We, however, hasten to add that the Tribunal have an undoubted discretion to award higher rates of interest, if in their opinion, the circumstances of the particular case justify such higher rates."
The MACT was not justified in awarding 9% interest and in the circumstances, reducing the rate of interest to 6% per annum is just and proper.
The MACT having noticed that the respondents were paid an ex gratia amount of Rs. 15,000/- deducted the same from out of the compensation payable, which does not call for interference.
In the result, this appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award impugned is modified entitling the respondents to Rs. 13,72,000/- (Rs. 13,87,000/- - Rs. 15,000/-) with interest at 6% p.a. and in all other respects remains unaltered.
The amount, in deposit, is directed to be transmitted to the MACT, forthwith.