Imambi and Others vs M.S. Gadekar and Others

R.S. Chauhan, J.—1. Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 25th November 2009, passed by the I Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) & Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-V, Davanagere, in MVC. No. 139/2008, wherein the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs. 17,000/- on account of death of one Hussainbi, the appellants-claimants have approached this Court for enhancement.

Briefly the facts of the case are that on 2.7.2007 at about 2.30 p.m., near Ramanagara Cross, Harapanahalli Taluk, when Hussainbi along with her great-grandson, Mubarak, was waiting for a bus to go to the hospital at Ucchangiduraga, a KSRTC bus, bearing registration No. KA-17/F-726, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, came and hit both Hussainbi and Mubarak. While Hussainbi died on the spot, Mubarak succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital. The claimants-appellants subsequently filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal. In the claim petition, they claimed that Hussainbi was working as an agricultural coolie and was engaged in rolling beedi. She was thus, earning Rs. 6,000/- per month from the said work. They further claimed that they were totally dependent on Hussainbi. Thus, they were entitled to compensation of Rs. 8 lakhs along with interest at 12% p.a.

The respondent-Corporation filed its objections. In order to buttress the case, the claimants examined one witness as PW-1, and submitted eight documents. In turn, the respondent-Corporation also examined a single witness, but did not submit any document in support of their defence. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal granted a meager amount of Rs. 17,000/- by way of compensation to the claimants-appellants. Hence, this appeal before this Court.

Mr. V. Mahesh, the learned counsel for the appellants, has pleaded that the learned Tribunal has failed to grant any compensation whatsoever for loss of estate. Even if the appellants did not prove the fact that Hussainbi, their mother, was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month, from the agricultural work and from rolling beedi, even then the notional income earned by Hussainbi should be taken at Rs. 4,000/- per month. Taking one-third of Rs. 4,000/-, the loss of estate per annum will come to Rs. 16,000/-. The said amount needs to be multiplied with the multiplier of 9. Hence, the claimants were entitled to Rs. 1,44,000/- towards loss of estate. Moreover, the learned Tribunal has granted merely Rs. 10,000/- under the category of loss of love and affection. According to the learned counsel, two persons had died in the accident, namely, mother and son. Therefore, the amount being granted towards "loss of love and affection" is rather meager. Hence, the learned counsel pleads that the compensation under the said category deserves to be enhanced.

Lastly, for funeral expenses, a meager amount of Rs. 5,000/- had been granted, whereas, in the case of Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh (, 2013 (9) SCC 54), the Apex Court had granted a compensation of Rs. 25,000/-. Therefore, even the compensation towards funeral expenses needs to be increased by this Court.

On the other hand, Mr. F.S. Dabali, the learned counsel appearing for respondent-Corporation, has pleaded that no evidence has been produced by the appellants to establish the income earned by Hussainbi. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was justified in denying any compensation for loss of estate. Moreover, according to him, having granted a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for loss of love and affection and Rs. 5,000/- for funeral expenses, a just and reasonable compensation has been granted by the learned Tribunal. Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation has supported the impugned award.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award.

In the case of A. Manavalagana vs. A. Krishnamurthy and Others (, ILR 2004 KAR 3282) this court has held:

"(iv) The procedure for determination of loss to estate is broadly the same as the procedure for determination of the loss of dependency. Both involve ascertaining the multiplicand and capitalizing it by multiplying it by an appropriate multiplier. But the significant difference is in the figure arrived at as multiplicand in cases where the claimants who are dependants claim loss of dependency, and in cases where the claimants who are not dependents claim loss to estate. The annual contribution to the family constitutes the multiplicand in the case of loss of dependency, whereas the annual savings of the deceased becomes the multiplicand in the case of loss to estate. The method of selection of multiplier is however the same in both cases."

Thus, the appellants are certainly entitled to a compensation under the category of "loss of estate". According to catena of cases, the loss of estate should be calculated by taking one-third of the income earned by the deceased. Although it is true that the appellants had not submitted any evidence to establish the income earned by Hussainbi, but nonetheless, her monthly income can be taken notionally as Rs. 4,000/- per month. Thus, she would have earned Rs. 48,000/- per annum. Taking one-third thereof, the loss of estate shall be calculated at Rs. 16,000/-. The same needs to be multiplied by the multiplier of ''9''. Thus, the loss of estate is calculated at Rs. 1,44,000/-.

As far as the compensation under the category of loss of love and affections is concerned, the Tribunal should have realised the fact that two family members have suddenly expired due to the motor accident. Thus, the awarding of merely of Rs. 10,000/- is niggardly. Moreover, the funeral expenses of Rs. 5,000/- is equally on the meager side. In the case of Rajesh (supra), the accident was of 2007 and the Hon''ble Supreme Court had granted a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses. Therefore, this Court enhances the compensation in the category loss of love and affection from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- and funeral expenses from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 25,000/-. Thus, the claimants-appellants are entitled for total compensation of Rs. 1,84,000/-, which is as under:

Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified and the claimants-appellants are granted an enhanced compensation of Rs. 2,19,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The respondent-Corporation is directed to deposit the enhanced amount through a demand draft in the name of the claimants-appellants, along with interest at 6% p.a. as mentioned above, after deducting Rs. 17,000/- which was already deposited by the Corporation.