AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mrs. S. Sujatha, J.—Claimants/appellants are in appeal in MFA No. 30346/2010 against the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Basavakalyan in MVC No. 83/2006.
MFA Crob. No. 1007/2010 is filed by the claimants/cross-objectors in MFA No. 30828/2009 (MVC No. 71/2006 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Basavakalyan).
Facts of the case in brief are :
The two claim petitions viz., MVC No. 71/2006 and 83/2006 were filed by the claimants under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the ''Act� for short) claiming compensation for the alleged death of driver and pillion rider of Bajaj CT 100 vehicle bearing Regn. No. KA-39/H-2653 involved in the road accident that occurred on 1/2-6-2006 on National Highway No. 9, within the limits of Traffic Police Station, Basavakalyan due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing Regn. No. HR-38/R-0766 which collided with the vehicle in which the deceased were travelling. The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record, allowed the petitions in part. The petitioners in MVC No. 71/2006 were awarded compensation of Rs. 6,11,000/- from respondent Nos. 2 and 4 and the petitioners in MVC No. 83/2006 were awarded with the compensation of Rs. 3,55,000/- from respondent No. 4 with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation. The respondent Nos. 2 and 4 were directed to pay the award amount 50% each with accrued interest in MVC No. 71/2006. The respondent No. 4 is directed to pay the award amount with accrued interest in MVC No. 83/2006.
MFA No. 30346/2010 is filed by the claimants seeking for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in MVC No. 83/2006. Similarly MFA Crob. 1007/2010 is filed by the cross objectors/claimants seeking enhancement of quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in MVC No. 71/2006.
MFA No. 30346/2010 (MVC No. 83/2006)
It is mainly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that Tribunal considering the age of the deceased as 35, adopted the multiplier of 15 to arrive at the loss of dependency which is contrary to the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009 ACJ 1298).
Nextly, it is contended that the deduction given by the Tribunal towards the personal expenses of the deceased is (4th of the income of Rs. 5000/- determined by the Tribunal; ought to have been at ⅙th of the income as per the settled principles of law enunciated by the Apex Court. Even under the conventional heads, the compensation amount awarded is very less much against the evidence placed on record.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/insurer would support the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and seeks for dismissal of the appeal.
After giving thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by both the parties, it is observed that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal at 15 considering the age of the deceased as 35 is contrary to the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma�s case (AIR 2009 SC 3104) (supra) and deducting (4th income towards the personal expenses of the deceased is also not appreciable considering the dependents i.e., widow, four minor children and two aged parents. Applying the multiplier of 16 and deducting ⅙th towards personal expenses of the deceased from the monthly income of Rs. 5000/-, the loss of dependency works out to Rs. 8,00,064/-.
Even the compensation awarded under the conventional heads appears to be too meagre in the context of the age, avocation of the deceased vis-a-vis the young age of the widow and minor children. Much emphasis is placed by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant on the judgments of this Court wherein considering the young age of the widow, under the head consortium an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- is generally awarded. Following the judgment of this Court, I am of the considered view that the young widow aged 24 at the time of filing the claim petition deserves the compensation amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- under the head consortium.
The minor children who have lost the love and affection of their father at their tender age requires to be suitably compensated. In the circumstances, Rs. 10,000/- each towards the compensation would be appropriate.
Even under the head of funeral expenses, considering the escalation of price and the circumstances, it would be appropriate to award Rs. 25,000/-.
An amount of Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of estate would be adequate compensation under the circumstances of the case.
Accordingly, the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal gets modified to Rs. 9,85,064/-. The Tribunal has awarded 50% compensation amount to be paid by respondent No. 4 deducting 50% of the amount for the self-negligence of the deceased driver. In such view of the matter, deducting Rs. 7,10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards the total compensation amount, respondent No. 4 (*Corrected v/o dated 25-4-2016) shall be liable to pay enhanced amount of Rs. 1,37,532/- towards 50% of the awarded amount. This enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realisation deducting the interest for the delayed period of 379 days in filing the appeal before this Court.
MFA CROB 1007/2010 in MFA No. 30828/2009 (MVC No. 71/2006)
MFA No. 30828/2009 was filed by the insurer against the award passed by the Tribunal questioning its liability to satisfy the award. This Court by order dated 7-12-2012 dismissed the said MFA No. 30828/2009. MFA Crob. 1007/2010 was filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in MVC No. 71/2006 in MFA No. 30828/ 2009.
The deceased Gopal-pillion rider aged about 30 years succumbed to death as a result of collusion of the vehicle in which he was travelling with the offending vehicle. Tribunal after considering the evidence on record has awarded the compensation of Rs. 6,11,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a.
Considering the dependents of the deceased viz., the widow aged 30, the five minor children and two aged parents, �th deduction in the monthly income of Rs. 4000/- made by the Tribunal towards the personal expenses of the deceased is contrary to the well settled principles of law and the same requires to be modified to ⅙th, to be deducted from the monthly income of the deceased as contended by the cross-objectors.
Accordingly, the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal considering the age of the deceased as 30 is also not in consonance with the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma�s case (AIR 2009 SC 3104) (supra). Adopting the multiplier of 17, deducting ⅙th towards the personal expenses of the deceased from his monthly income of Rs. 4000/- as determined by the Tribunal, loss of dependency works out to Rs. 6,80,136/-.
As aforesaid, considering the young age of the widow, the amount awarded under the head consortium requires to be enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000/-.
Five minor children having lost the love and affection of their father at their young age requires to be suitably compensated. Hence, awarding Rs. 10,000/- each would be appropriate.
Rs. 25,000/- would be the just and reasonable amount that could be awarded towards the funeral expenses.
Under the given circumstances, Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of estate would be the conservative amount.
Accordingly, the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified to Rs. 8,75,136/-. The liability apportioned by the Tribunal on Respondent Nos. 2 and 4 equally i.e., 50% each shall remain unaltered including the interest amount.
The enhanced amount of Rs. 2,64,136/- shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realisation.
Accordingly, the matters are disposed of.