Geetha G. vs The Director

Aravind Kumar, J.—This is a claimants appeal questioning the correctness and legality of the judgment and award passed in MVC No. 2355/2012 dated 19.08.2013 by the MACT, Bangalore and enhancement is sought for in this appeal. Though matter is listed for orders by consent of learned Advocates appearing for the parties and also in view of the fact that tribunal records have been secured, matter is taken up for final hearing.

I have heard the arguments of learned Advocates appearing for the parties.

Facts in brief leading to the filing of this appeal are as under:

On account of a road traffic accident that occurred on 25.02.2012 claimants contended that deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. As such, claiming compensation a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 came to be filed. Respondents 1 and 2 on service of notice appeared and filed their statement of objections and averments made in the claim petition came to be denied.

Tribunal on assessment of evidence tendered by the parties has allowed the claim petition in part and has awarded a total sum of Rs. 14,50,000/- under the following heads:

Appellants are before this court seeking for enhancement of compensation under two heads namely, ''loss of dependency'' and ''medical bills'' contending inter alia that tribunal erred in not considering the income tax returns filed by the claimants as per Exhibit P-25 (2 Nos.) relating to the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 wherein it has been clearly indicated that income of the deceased was escalating every year and for the relevant assessment year income of the deceased was Rs. 1,06,157/- and Rs. 1,54,756/- and tribunal having accepted the same and applying the principles laid down in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, it ought to have considered 30% towards future prospects and same was required to be added to the income of the deceased while determining compensation for loss of dependency. Non consideration of this aspect according to learned counsel for appellants has resulted in great miscarriage of justice.

Per contra Smt. Rupa, learned HCGP appearing for state would support the award and submits that what has been awarded by the Tribunal itself is just and reasonable and submits that award of tribunal does not call for interference.

Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of the records and after bestowing my careful attention to the rival contentions raised at the Bar, I am of the considered view that claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation under both the heads namely, ''loss of dependency'' and ''medical bills'' for the following reasons.

Tribunal having accepted that the deceased was an inpatient from 25.02.2012 to 02.03.2012 and during the said period he had been treated not only at Victoria Hospital but also Bangalore Hospital, it has accepted the medical bills which came to be collectively marked as Exhibit P-32. However, bills for the amount of Rs. 30,261/- has been disallowed on the ground that it does not contain seal and signature of the Druggist and the Doctor. This is an erroneous finding. Bills available on record would indicate that they are computer generated bills and it not only bears the seal but also time. Said Drug store is located inside the hospital. Hence, genuineness of these bills could not have been disbelieved by the tribunal. Non consideration of this vital evidence has resulted in just claim being disallowed. Hence, claimants would be entitled for the disallowed amount namely a sum of Rs. 30,261/- towards ''medical expenses''.

Insofar as the computation of loss of dependency is concerned tribunal has accepted the income of deceased was Rs. 1,50,000/- and deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses since number of dependents were three and by applying the principles laid down in Sarla Verma, it has awarded compensation towards ''loss of dependency''. Tribunal erred in not considering that deceased was aged about 51 years and the Hon''ble Apex Court in Reshma Kumari and Others Vs. Madan Mohan and Another, at paragraph 36 has held as under:

"36. The standardization of addition to income for future prospects shall help in achieving certainty in arriving at appropriate compensation. We approve the method that an addition of 50 per cent, of actual salary be made to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years and the addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years and no addition should be made where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years. Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the actual salary shall mean actual salary less tax. In the cases where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary without provision for annual increments, the actual income at the time of death without any addition to income for future prospects will be appropriate. A departure from the above principle can only be justified in extraordinary circumstances and very exceptional cases".

Income tax returns filed by claimants as per Exhibit P-25 relating to two assessment years preceding to date of death of deceased would indicate that income of deceased had increased over the years. As per P.M. Report-Exhibit P-18 and Death summary-Exhibit P-21 deceased was aged about 50 years and he was keeping good health. Thus, future prospects of the deceased for earning more was very bright. As such applying the principles laid down in Reshma Kumari case, I am of the considered view that 30% requires to be added to the income of the deceased and his income is required to be considered at Rs. 1,50,000/- instead of Rs. 1,00,000/- as determined by the tribunal. Thus, income of the deceased which was required to be considered by the tribunal was by adding 30% to his income which would be Rs. 1,95,000/-. Wife and two children were dependent on the income of the deceased and 1/3rd requires to be deducted towards expenses namely Rs. 65,000/-. When so deducted actual loss of income to the dependents would be Rs. 1,30,000/- p.a. Since deceased was aged about 50 years and odd appropriate multiplier requires to be adopted as per dicta laid down in Sarla Verma case would be ''11'' and when so adopted compensation that becomes payable to the claimants towards ''loss of dependency'' would be Rs. 14,30,000/- as against a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- awarded. Thus, claimant would be entitled to additional compensation of Rs. 2,30,000/- towards ''loss of dependency'' and Rs. 30,261/- towards ''medical expenses''. In all claimants would be entitled to additional compensation of Rs. 2,60,261/- with interest. Hence following:

ORDER

Appeal is hereby allowed in part.

Judgment and decree passed in MVC 2355/2012 dated 19.08.2013 by MACT Bangalore is hereby modified and in substitution to the extent by enhancing compensation towards ''loss of dependency'' and medical expenses, an additional compensation of Rs. 2,60,261/- is hereby awarded which shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till date of payment or deposit whichever is earlier.

First Respondent-Insurer shall deposit the enhanced compensation with interest before the jurisdictional tribunal within eight weeks from today. Order for deposit shall be in the same proportion as ordered by the tribunal.