Jayalakshmi and Others vs G. Krishna Murthy and Others

N.K. Patil, J.

Though the matter is listed for orders, with the consent of the learned Counsel for both parties, this appeal is taken up for disposal. This appeal is filed by the claimants against the impugned judgment and award dated 17.04.2013 passed in MVC No. 10/2011 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, K.R. Pet, (hereinafter referred to as ''Tribunal'' for brevity) awarding compensation of Rs. 5,49,000/-, with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation, on account of the death of Siddaiah in a road traffic accident. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the appellants have presented this appeal.

Brief facts of the case are:

Appellant No. 1 is the wife, appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are the children of the deceased Siddaiah. The appellants contend that deceased Siddaiah was aged about 45 years, an agriculturist, milk vendor and flower merchant and earning Rs. 8,000/- p.m. He was hale and healthy prior to the accident. On an ill-fated day i.e., 15.10.2010, when the deceased Siddaiah was returning back to his native village, Nadaboganahally, along with his friend after selling flower at K.R. Pet town, in a motorcycle bearing registration No. KA-11/U-9319 as a pillion rider, near Uchanahalli Gate, a Goods Auto bearing registration No. KA 11/5025, being driven by its driver came in a high speed in a rash and negligent manner from opposite direction and dashed against the motorcycle and caused accident. On account of the said accident, he sustained grievous injuries and died at the spot. It is the case of the claimants that they have lost the head of the family and they were depending on the deceased for their livelihood. The social and economic security is affected. They also contend that the deceased was the only bread winner in the family and the first appellant has lost her soul mate at the age of 40 years. The children have lost love and affection, inspiration and guidance from the deceased. On account of the untimely death of the deceased, the appellants - claimants were constrained to file a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act claiming compensation of Rs. 27,43,000/- against the respondents on account of the death of Siddaiah in road traffic accident. The claim petition filed by the claimants came up for consideration before the Tribunal and the Tribunal in turn after perusal of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, allowed the claim petition in part awarding a sum of Rs. 5,49,000/- under different heads with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Being dissatisfied with the same, the claimants have presented this appeal.

We have heard Sri. P. Nataraju, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, Sri. B.K. Papanna, learned Counsel for first respondent and Sri. O. Mahesh, learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent - Insurance Company..

Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased was the only bread earner in the family and the Tribunal has assessed the income on the lower side. Therefore, the income of the deceased may be redetermined as the accident is of the year 2010. He further contended that the compensation awarded towards conventional heads is also on the lower side. Therefore, he contends that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is inadequate and prays to re-determine the compensation towards loss of dependency and conventional heads by modifying the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

Per contra, learned Counsel for the second respondent - Insurer contended that the tribunal has awarded reasonable compensation after due consideration of the oral and documentary evidence available on record and interference by this Court is uncalled for as the tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation.

After critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record and considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel for both parties and after perusal of the impugned judgment and award, the only point that arise for our consideration is:

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

The occurrence of the accident and the death of the deceased Siddaiah are not in dispute. Further, it is also not in dispute that the deceased was aged about 45 years and the claimants are none other than the wife and children of the deceased. He was an agriculturist, milk vendor and flower merchant, earning Rs. 8,000/- p.m.. The accident is of the year 2010 and the dependents are three in number. Therefore, we can safely re-assess the income of the deceased at Rs. 5,500/- p.m. and by deducting 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the income comes to Rs. 3,667/- p.m. (Rs. 5,500/- - Rs. 1,833/-). The appropriate multiplier applicable is ''14''. Accordingly, we redetermine the Toss of dependency'' at Rs. 6,16,056/- (Rs. 3,667/- x 12 x 14) as against Rs. 5,04,000/- awarded by the I Tribunal.

Further, the tribunal has erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards conventional heads also. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances, we award Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 30,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 25,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses to meet the ends of justice as against Rs. 45,000/- awarded by the tribunal towards conventional heads. Thus, the total compensation works out to Rs. 7,46,056/-as against Rs. 5,49,000/-. For the foregoing reasons, the instant appeal filed by the appellants is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 17.04.2013 passed in MVC No. 10/2011 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, K.R. Pet, is hereby modified.

The appellants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 7,46,056/- as against Rs. 5,49,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation comes to Rs. 1,97,056/- with interest at the rate of 8% p.a., from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit.

R2 - Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount along with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization, within 3 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment and award.

Out of the enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,97,056/-, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in F.D. in the name of appellant No. 1, in any nationalised or scheduled or grameena Bank for a period of 10 years and renewable for another 10 years, with liberty to withdraw the interest periodically.

Remaining Rs. 97,056/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the appellant Nos. 1 to 3 in equal proportion, immediately on deposit by R2-Insurance Company. Office to draw the award, accordingly.