AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil, J—This appeal by the appellants-claimants is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 10/10/2012, passed in MVC No. 3300/2009, by the XVIII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-4, Bangalore (SCCH-4), (hereinafter referred to as ''Tribunal'' for short), for enhancement of compensation, on the ground that, a sum of Rs. 6,52,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under different heads with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till its deposit, as against the claim Rs. 50,00,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased Sri. Shiva Nagesh, in the road traffic accident is inadequate.
In brief, the facts of the case are:
"The appellants are the wife and minor son and respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are the parents of the deceased. The appellants have filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation against the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, 6 and 7, on account of the death of the deceased in the road traffic accident, contending that, on 23.10.2008 at about 4.45 p.m. deceased was proceeding in a Scorpio bearing Reg. No. KA.03.MG.1044 from Mysore towards H.D. Kote town, at that time, the driver of the private bus bearing Reg. No. KA.09.C1999 came with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him. Due to which, he died at the spot."
It is the further case of the appellants that, deceased was aged about 30 years, hale and healthy prior to the accident, working as a Driver in R.S. Developers and also doing real estate business and earning Rs. 11,100/- per month and Rs. 3/- lakhs per annum respectively and looking after the welfare of the family by contributing his entire earnings to the family. Due to his untimely death, appellants have lost the love and affection and also earning member of the family and parents have lost their son and underwent lot of mental shock and agony.
The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and other material available on file, has allowed the claim petition in part and awarded the compensation of Rs. 6,52,000/- under different heads with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till deposit, directing the respondent No. 1 to deposit the award amount and dismissing the petition against respondent Nos. 6 and 7.
Being dis- satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants have presented this appeal, for enhancement of compensation.
We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned counsel for Insurer.
The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, at the outset is that, the Tribunal has erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards loss of dependency and towards conventional heads and what is awarded is inadequate and it requires to be enhanced reasonably. To substantiate the said submission, he submitted that, deceased was aged about 30 years, working as a driver in R.S. Developers and drawing the salary of Rs. 7,500/- per month and also earning Rs. 3,00,000/- per annum by doing real estate business. But this aspect of the matter has not been considered or appreciated by the Tribunal while assessing the income of the deceased. Therefore, he submitted that the income of the deceased may be re-assessed reasonably and reasonable compensation may be awarded towards loss of dependency and towards conventional heads on the ground that dependants are his wife, minor son and respondent Nos. 4 and 5, the parents. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified.
As against this, learned counsel appearing for the Insurer, inter-alia, contended and substantiated that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file and therefore, it does not call for interference. However, after going through the material on record, he fairly submitted that the income of the deceased may be reassessed and reasonable compensation may be awarded in accordance with law.
After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties and after careful perusal of the material available on record at threadbare, including the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the only point that arises for our consideration is:
"Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?"
The occurrence of the accident and the resultant death of the deceased are not in dispute. Further, it is not in dispute that deceased was aged about 30 years, hale and healthy prior to the accident, working as Driver in R.S. developers and also doing real estate business and the dependants are his parents, wife and son. On account of the untimely death of the deceased, wife has lost her companion at her young age, son is deprived of the love and affection, guidance and security of his father and the parents have lost their son and it has affected the social and economic condition of the family. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- per month by disbelieving the Ex. P10-salary certificate and Ex. P12- copy of the pass book, which is on the lower side and it needs to be enhanced. Having regard to the age and occupation of the deceased, number of dependants and the year of accident, we re-assess his income at Rs. 7,500/- per month instead of Rs. 3,000/- per month as assessed by the Tribunal to meet the ends of justice. Out of which, if 1/4th ( Rs. 1,875/-) is deducted towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased as rightly deducted by the Tribunal, his net contribution to the family comes to Rs. 5,625/- per month. The appropriate multiplier applicable is ''17'' since deceased was aged about 30 years in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) ACJ 1298 : AIR 2009 SC 3104 : (2009) CLT 1055 : (2009) 6 JT 495 : (2009) 6 SCALE 129 : (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 5 SCR 1098 : (2009) 5 UJ 2280 : (2009) AIRSCW 4992 : (2009) 3 Supreme 487 as rightly adopted by the Tribunal. Therefore, we redetermine the loss of dependency at Rs. 11,47,500/- ( Rs. 5,625/- x 12 x 17) instead of Rs. 6,12,000/- awarded by the Tribunal and accordingly, it is awarded.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as referred above, we deem it fit to award a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- to the each of the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 and respondent Nos. 4 and 5, Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 25,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses. In all, the appellants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 13,47,500/- instead of Rs. 6,52,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. There would be an enhancement of Rs. 6,95,500/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization (excluding interest for the delayed period of 209 days in filing the appeal).
For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 10/10/2012, passed in MVC No. 3300/2009, by the XVIII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-4, Bangalore (SCCH-4), is hereby modified, awarding a sum of Rs. 6,95,500/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization, (excluding interest for the delayed period of 209 days in filing the appeal) in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
The first respondent-Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 6,95,500/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, (excluding interest for the delayed period of 209 days in filing the appeal) within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Immediately on such deposit by the Insurer, the enhanced compensation of Rs. 6,95,500/-, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the Fixed Deposit in the name of appellant No. 1, wife of the deceased, in any Nationalized or Scheduled or Grameena Bank, for a period of 15 years, renewable by another 10 years, with liberty reserved to her to withdraw the interest accrued on it, periodically.
A sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the Fixed Deposit in the name of appellant No. 2, in any Nationalized or Scheduled or Grameena Bank, till he attains 30 years, with liberty reserved to the appellant No. 1, wife of the deceased to withdraw the interest accrued on it, periodically, till he attains 21 years for his welfare and from 22 years to 30 years, he is at liberty to withdraw the interest accrued on it periodically.
A sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in Fixed Deposit in the names of each of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, parents of the deceased in any Nationalized or Scheduled or Grameena Bank, for a period of 05 years, renewable by another 05 years, with liberty reserved to them to withdraw the interest accrued on it, periodically.
Remaining sum of Rs. 95,500/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of appellant No. 1, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in equal proportion immediately.
Draw the award accordingly.