AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.N. Venugopala Gowda
Parents and younger brother of T. Devendrappa, filed claim petition under S.166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in the MACT, against the respondents - owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, claiming compensation of Rs. 14,00,000/- for the death of their son T. Devendrappa, a teacher aged about 28 years, in a motor accident which occurred on 23.01.2007. Tribunal after considering the evidence, held that the deceased was aged about 28 years, his income was Rs. 8,404/- p.m. and he was contributing 50% of his income to the claimants. Award for Rs. 6,55,088/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit was ordered to be paid by the respondents. This appeal is by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation. Respondents have not questioned the impugned Judgment / Award directing them to pay the compensation, noticed supra.
Sri R. Shashidhara, learned counsel would contend that the deceased being employed in a Government School was drawing salary of Rs. 8,404/- prior to death, as is evident from Ex. P5 and that he being aged about 28 years, had reasonable prospects of earning more by way of earning promotions, etc. Learned counsel submits that there being reasonable prospects of higher earning, 50% of the income has to be added to the income of the deceased as on the date of accident, in terms of the decision in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, . Learned counsel submits that the sum awarded by the MACT is neither just nor reasonable and hence, interference in the matter is called for.
Sri K.K. Vasanth, learned Advocate, on the other hand, would argue that the Tribunal has passed just and reasonable award. Learned counsel pointed out that the 3rd claimant being aged about 24 years and a graduate, cannot be treated as a dependent on the deceased and in the circumstances, appeal being devoid of merit, may be dismissed.
Tribunal based on Ex. P6 has held that the deceased, a bachelor and a teacher, was earning Rs. 8,404/- p.m. 50% of the amount was deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. Multiplier of 12 was applied with reference to the age of younger parent and loss of dependency was determined at Rs. 6,05,088/-.
Deceased being aged about 28 years and a government employee had reasonable prospects of earning higher income by way of increments and promotions. In the circumstances, as held in the case of SARLA VERMA (supra), there has to be addition of 50% of the income, to the sum which the deceased war earning prior to his death. The salary of the deceased as per Ex. P6 was Rs. 8,404/-. There has to be an addition of Rs. 4,202/- to the said sum. Thus, the average earning of the deceased can be taken at Rs. 12,600/- p.m. 50% has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, since he was a bachelor. Loss of dependency would be Rs. 6300 x 12 x 13 = Rs. 9,82,800/-. There has to be addition of Rs. 20,000/-under the conventional heads. Thus, there is underassessment of loss by the Tribunal and the award passed by it is neither just nor reasonable. Consequently, the impugned award calls for modification.
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned Judgment / Award is modified. It is declared that the appellants are held entitled to total compensation of Rs. 10,02,800/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation. However, appellants are not entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation amount of Rs. 3,47,712/-, for the delay period of 253 days in filing the appeal, condoned conditionally vide order dated 08.03.2012 passed on Misc. Cvl. No. 5880/2010.
Respondent No. 2 - Insurance Company is directed to deposit the balance compensation amount in the MACT within a period of two months. There shall be no order as to costs.