AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the Insurer is directed against the judgment and award dated 31st October 2011, passed in MVC No. 609/2010, by the Senior Civil Judge, JMFC, Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Turuvekere, (for short, ''Tribunal''), awarding compensation of Rs. 2,75,000/- with interest at 6% per annum, in favour of respondents 1 to 5/claimants, on the ground that the compensation awarded by Tribunal is on the higher side and is liable to be reduced. The facts in brief are that, claimants are the sons and grandsons/legal heirs of the deceased late Kempamma, Wife of Late Nanjappa. They filed the claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that at about 6:00 A.M., on 25-04-2010, when the deceased and her family members were travelling in one hired Tempo-trax bearing Registration No. KA-44/1535, with an intention to go to Shivagange Temple of. Tumkur from their native village Tavarekere, on NH-206 road, towards Shivagange, she met with an accident, on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the said Tempo trax, Mallasandra, Gubbi Taluk at about 7:15 A.M., when he was trying to overtake another front going Lorry. Due to the impact, the deceased died on the spot.
It is the case of the claimants that, the deceased was hale and healthy prior to the date of accident, which resulted in her death and on account of her untimely death, they have become total orphans as the father is already no more and they have also lost social and financial support permanently, apart from guidance and social security and therefore, they have to be compensated reasonably.
On account of the death of the deceased Kempamma, the claimants filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of a sum of Rs. 10.00 lakhs against the appellant/insurer and another The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 31st October 2011. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition, awarding a sum of Rs. 2,75,000/- under different heads, with 6% interest per annum, from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the Insurer is in appeal before this Court, seeking reduction of the same.
I have heard the learned counsel appearing for Insurer, for quite some time.
Shri. H.N. Keshava Prashant, learned counsel appearing for Insurer vehemently submitted that the Tribunal grossly erred in awarding compensation of Rs. 2,43,000/- towards loss of dependency, on account of the untimely death of deceased Kempamma on the ground that the claimants are the major sons and are not dependents on the income of the deceased and that they are entitled to only 25% of the income towards loss of estate and not loss of dependency. Further, he submitted that the Tribunal erred in deducting 1/4th towards the personal expenses of the deceased instead of 50% as the claimants were not dependent on the income of the deceased. To substantiate the said submission, he relied upon the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court reported in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shivamma, Prabhakar, Ranganatha and Prasad, judgment of Division Bench of this Court reported in A. Manavalagan Vs. A. Krishnamurthy and Others, and also the judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court reported in Smt. Manjuri Bera Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Another, and submitted that the legal heirs who are majors and not dependent on the income of the deceased are entitled to only loss of estate and not loss of dependency.
After hearing the learned counsel for the Insurer, after re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file and after going through the citations referred supra, I do not find any error or material irregularity as such committed by the Tribunal in awarding the compensation of Rs. 2,75,000/- under different heads with interest at 6% per annum, in favour of the claimants, on account of the untimely death of the deceased Kempamma, mother and grandmother of the claimants, in the road traffic accident. Just because the claimants are not dependent on the income of the deceased, it cannot be said that they are not entitled to compensation. They are the legal heirs and are entitled to compensation towards loss of estate and other conventional heads. After going through paragraphs 18 to 20, it can be seen that, in fact, the Tribunal is not justified in assessing the income of the deceased at only Rs. 3,000/- per month. The deceased was aged about 60 years and doing agricultural work and had rich experience in agricultural work. The accident is of the year 2010. Therefore, having regard to her age, avocation and the year accident, even if we assess the monthly income at least at Rs. 5,000/- and deduct 50% towards her personal and living expenses, and adopt the multiplier of ''9'' as applicable to her age, the loss of estate would work out to Rs. 2,70,000/- and further, the claimants in fact would be entitled to Rs. 45,000/- towards conventional heads. But only a sum of Rs. 32,000/- is awarded under the said heads. Mere wrong mentioning of the head as loss of dependency'' under which the compensation is awarded instead of loss of estate'' cannot take away the legitimate entitlement of compensation by the claimants.
Therefore, having regard to the totality of the case on hand, I am of the view that the compensation awarded by Tribunal is just and reasonable and it does not call for interference by this Court.
Further, regarding the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for Insurer, there is no dispute or quarrel regarding the ratio of law laid down in the said judgments and if the same are strictly made applicable to the case on hand, then, the claimants would be entitled to higher compensation than what is awarded by Tribunal. Taking all these aspects into consideration, I am of the considered view that the compensation awarded by Tribunal is just and reasonable and does not call for interference by this Court. For the reasons stated above, the appeal filed by the appellant/Insurer is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
The amount, if any, in deposit by the Insurer shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal, forthwith.
Office to draw award accordingly.
In view of disposal of the main appeal on merits, I.A. 2/2012 for stay does not survive for consideration and is accordingly dismissed as having become infructuous.