AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.S. Patil, J.—This appeal is filed by the claimants under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking enhancement of compensation.
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, has awarded total compensation in a sum of Rs. 3,95,000/- along with interest at 6% p.a. against respondents 1 & 2 herein on account of the death of Smt. Shantha, wife of petitioners No. 1 and mother of petitioners 2 & 3.
Facts leading to the dispute, stated in nutshell, are that on 14.06.2008, when Shantha was proceeding as a pillion rider in a TVS moped bearing registration No. KA-02 EX-6716 on Peenya II stage Main Road, Bengaluru, a BMTC bus bearing registration No. KA01-F-1952 driven in a rash and negligent manner with high speed dashed against the TVS moped. As a result, Shantha fell down and the bus ran over Shantha.
Claimants instituted claim petition contending inter alia that deceased was a hale and healthy young lady of 35 years; she was running a provision store in the name and style ''Siddeshwara Provision Store'', Balajinagar, Bengaluru and was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month and that the entire family was dependent on her earnings.
Respondents 1 & 2 being the insured and owner of the bus respectively contested the claim. They denied the fact that deceased was running a provision store and was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. The 1st claimant examined himself as P.W. 1 and produced and marked Exs. P1 to P10. Ex. P9 is the general licence dated 27.07.2007 issued by Bidaralli Gram Panchayat, Bengaluru Taluk in the name of deceased Shantha for running ''Siddeshwara Provision Store'' for the year 2007-08 having collected licence fee of Rs. 500/-. Except marking, Ex. R1 - policy of insurance company, no other evidence was adduced on behalf of respondents.
The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that accident occurred due to the actionable negligence on the part of BMTC bus. It has found that evidence on record disclosed that Shantha, wife of claimant No. 1 was running a provision store. In this regard, apart from the documents produced at Ex. P9 which is the general licence, the suggestion made to P.W. 1 in his cross-examination, would indicate that the provision store was run not within the limits of the Corporation, but within the limits of Gram Panchayat area. It is thus clear that deceased was not just a house wife, but was running a provision store and was supporting the family. Having referred to this evidence and having come to the conclusion that deceased was aged about 37 years, the Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- per month and has awarded compensation under different heads as under:
Out of Rs. 3,95,000/-, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- has been deducted as the same has been already received by the claimants as interim compensation.
Having heard the learned counsel for both parties, the only point that arises for consideration is:
"Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation, if so at what rate?"
Ex. P9 - general licence makes it clear that deceased was holding a licence for running a provision store. Cross-examination of P.W. 1 discloses that a suggestion is made to him stating that the provision store was run within the limits of Gram Panchayat area and not within the limits of Corporation. It is thus clear that deceased was engaged in a gainful avocation by running a provision store and was looking after the family affairs. The accident has occurred on 14.06.2008. Claimants and deceased were residing in Bengaluru. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record, it can be safely concluded that deceased was earning at least a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month at the time of her death.
So far as the age of the deceased is concerned, it has been rightly arrived at 37 years based on the ration card produced at Ex. P10. However, with regard to award of compensation under conventional heads, the Tribunal has not kept in mind the principles as enunciated by the Apex Court in the recent judgment in the case of Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, . Deceased has left behind two young children and her husband. Hence, towards loss of consortium, a sum of Rs. 60,000/- deserves to be allowed, towards funeral expenses, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- deserves to be allowed, towards loss of love and affection to the young children, particularly the minor child claimant No. 3, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- deserves to be allowed. Applying the multiplier of 15 and deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses out of monthly wages of Rs. 5,000/-, if loss of dependency is calculated, it will come to Rs. 5,99,940 (1/3rd of Rs. 5,000 = 1666.66, Rs. 5,000 -Rs. 1,667/- = 3,333) (15 X Rs. 3,333/- X 12 = 5,99,940/-) rounded off to Rs. 6,00,000/-. Accordingly, the compensation is awarded under different heads as under:
Thus, after deducting Rs. 15,000/- already received by the claimants as interim compensation, the claimants are held entitled for total compensation in a sum of Rs. 7,20,000/- along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation. 50% of the amount of compensation awarded shall be invested in Fixed Deposit in any Nationalised Bank in the name of the claimants initially for a period of three years. Balance 50% of the amount of compensation may be withdrawn by the claimants. Appeal is accordingly allowed in part.