Emina Pramila and Others vs Ramesh and Others

N.K. Patil, J.

This is claimants'' appeal filed against the impugned judgment and award dated 6th September 2013 passed in MVC No. 354/2012 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT-V at Davangere, (hereinafter referred to as ''Tribunal'' for short), for enhancement of compensation.

The Tribunal by its judgment and award has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,41,600/- 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. 70 lakhs on account of the death of the deceased, late Sri L. Emanuel Peter, in the road traffic accident.

In brief, the facts of the case are:

The 1st appellant is the wife and 2nd appellant is the minor son of the deceased and they have filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation of Rs. 70 lakhs on account of the death of the deceased in the road traffic accident, contending that, on 28.01.2012 the deceased Emanuel, Telecom Mechanic and Dananjayachar K, JTO of BSNL Office on duty had been to the Bathi and Kunduwada Villages on the motorcycle Suzuki India bearing Reg. No. KA-17/Y-1664 which belonged to Emanuel for recovery of arrears by telephone customers as per the order of higher authority of BSNL. Accordingly they went to the villages and collected arrears and they were on the way back to Davanagere. At about 2.45 p.m. on P.B. Road, the motorbike was driven by JTO Dhananjaykumar K. and Emanuel was pillion rider as they were proceeding on the left side of the P.B. Road by observing all the traffic rules in a moderate speed were and passing through the Kunduwada Cross at about 2.45 p.m., at that time, the driver of the Honda City Car bearing Reg. No. KA 01/MA 0486 coming from back side drove his car in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner without control so as to endanger the human life, all of a sudden dashed against the motorbike, as a result of which, the rider Dhananjayachar and pillion rider Emanuel fell down on the road and rider Dhananjayachar sustained injuries and Emanuel sustained grievous injuries on his hands, leg and head. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, pillion rider died at the spot. Rider of the motorbike Dhananjayachar is the eye witness to the accident. It is the further case of the appellants that, the deceased was aged about 46 years at the time of accident, hale and healthy and was a driver and working as telecom mechanic in BSNL office and earning salary of Rs. 27,027/- p.m. and looking after the welfare of the family and due to his untimely death they suffered socially and economically. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and other material available on file, has allowed the claim petition in part and awarded the compensation of Rs. 3,41,600/- under different heads with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal the appellants have presented this appeal, for enhancement of compensation.

The learned counsel appearing for the appellants at the outset submits that, as per the office records the deceased L. Emanuel Peter was born on 20.07.1966. Thus from the evidence of P.W. 2 and Ex. P17, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that deceased was aged about forty six years at the time of his death and drawing a salary of Rs. 27,027/- p.m. and had great future prospectus in his career. This aspect has not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal while awarding compensation. The Tribunal has committed an error in taking monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 27,027/- as per salary certificate produced at Ex. P17 and Ex. P19 and every year there will be increase of 3% in his basic salary and once in three months there will a raise in Dearness Allowance and almost once in seven years there will be promotion. Claimant No. 1 Smt. Emina Pramila being the wife of deceased was employed as a Government teacher and getting salary of Rs. 22,000/- and thus is entitled to the extent of 1/4 salary of her deceased husband towards loss of estate. It is relevant to note that merely because the Claimant No. 1 is working as a government teacher and drawing a salary of Rs. 22,000/- it is not a ground to award less compensation due to the accidental death of her husband. Therefore, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be modified.

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurer inter alia contended and substantiated that, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper. It is passed after considering the oral and documentary evidence and interference by this Court is not called for.

After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and on perusal of the material available on record, including the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the only point that arise for consideration is:

"Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?"

It is not in dispute that the deceased died in the road traffic accident. Further it is not in dispute that, the deceased was aged about 46 years at the time of accident, hale and healthy and looking after the welfare of the appellants. The claimants are none other than the wife and minor son of the deceased, who have lost their future security due to his untimely death. Having regard to the age, avocation and year of accident, we can safely re-assess the income of the deceased at Rs. 22,737/- per month to meet the ends of justice out of it, if 1/3rd is deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the balance comes to Rs. 15,158/-. In the light of the decision in Sarla Verma''s case, the appropriate multiplier applicable is 13. Accordingly, the appellants are entitled towards loss of dependency at Rs. 23,64,648/- (Rs. 15,158/- x 12 x 13).

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case that, the wife has lost her life partner at an young age and the minor child has lost the love and affection, inspiration and guidance in life, we deem it fit to award Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of love and affection at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- to each appellant and Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral and transportation expenses. In all, the claimants are entitled for Rs. 25,34,648/- as against Rs. 3,41,600/- awarded by the Tribunal.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal dated 6th September 2013 in MVC No. 354/2012 is hereby modified. The total compensation payable comes to Rs. 25,34,648/- as against Rs. 3,41,600/- awarded by the Tribunal. There will be an enhancement of Rs. 21,93,048/- with 9% interest per annum.

The 3rd respondent-Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 21,93,048/- with interest at 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realisation, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Out of enhanced compensation, Rs. 18,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank, in the name of 2nd appellant till he attains the age of 21 years with liberty to the 1st appellant to withdraw the periodical interest accrued on it till he attains the age of 21 years for his welfare and thereafter he is at liberty to withdraw the interest accrued on it, periodically.

The remaining Rs. 3,93,048/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the 1st appellant immediately, on deposit by the Insurer.

Draw the award, accordingly.