AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Ananda, J.—MFA No. 109/2010 is filed by KSRTC against the award made in MVC No. 1582/2008, inter alia contending that finding of Tribunal regarding issue of negligence is erroneous compensation awarded is far on the higher side.
MFA No. 7977/2009 is filed by claimants in MVC No. 1583/2008, inter alia contending that compensation awarded by Tribunal is inadequate.
MFA No. 7976/2009 is filed by claimants in MVC No. 1582/2008 for enhancement of compensation.
The lower court records are received. With the consent of learned Counsel for parties, the appeals are taken up for decision on merits.
As the claim petition in MVC No. 1582/2008 was filed u/s 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ''the Act''), the ''Tribunal has not recorded any finding on the issue of negligence.
I have heard Sri Srishaila, learned Counsel for KSRTC and Sri A. Sreenivasaiah, learned Counsel for claimants in MFA No. 7976/2009 & MFA No. 7977/2009.
In MVC No. 1582/2008, the Tribunal has held that accident took place due to rash and negligence driving of driver, of KSRTC bus bearing No. KA-01-F-8242. The Tribunal has disbelieved the evidence given by driver of KSRTC bus.
The claimants have examined PW4-Bharath to prove that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of driver of KSRTC bus bearing No. KA-01-F-8242.
In the objection statement filed by KSRTC, it is contended that KSRTC bus was proceeding on the main road, the motor cycle on which deceased persons were proceeding came from left side and dashed against KSRTC bus.
During cross-examination of PW4, it has been suggested by the learned Counsel for KSRTC that at the time of accident rider of motor cycle bearing No. AP-03-H-8907 was taking a U-turn near the place of accident. PW4 has admitted that rider of motor cycle had taken a U-turn. It is obvious that the motor cycle having entered the main road had taken a U-turn. This part of evidence would belie the contention of KSRTC that motor cycle had abruptly entered the main road from a cross road. The driver of KSRTC bus was prosecuted for causing accident, which is evident from the contents of Ex. P. 3. Therefore, KSRTC cannot be heard to say that accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of rider of motor cycle. In the circumstances, I do not find any reasons to interfere with the finding of Tribunal on the issue of negligence.
The learned Counsel for KSRTC would submit that compensation awarded in MVC No. 1582/2008 is far on the higher side; the deceased was not in stable employment; the Tribunal was not justified in following Sarla Varma''s case to ada 50% of gross income to arrive at multiplicand.
As could be seen from the evidence on record, deceased N. Narayana Reddy was a B. Com graduate and a Diploma holder in Computer Application. Deceased N. Narayana Reddy was working as a Stores Officer in M/s. Hyva India Pvt. Ltd., situate in S Indian Penal Code OT Industrial Area, Hosur. Therefore, it cannot be said that the employment of deceased was not stable. In the circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in following the decision reported in Sarla Varma''s case to add 50% of gross salary of deceased to arrive at the multiplicand. The contention of learned Counsel for KSRTC that deceased N. Narayana Reddy was working in a Private Company Limited and therefore his employment was not stable cannot be accepted.
In a decision reported in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, the Supreme Court has held:
In Susamma Thomas, this Court increased the income by nearly 100%, in Sarla Dixit, the income was increased only by 50% and in Abati Bezbaruah the income was increased by a mere 7%. In view of imponderables and uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a. permanent job and was below 40 years. [Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the words ''actual salary should be read as ''actual salary less tax'']. The addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. There should be no addition, where the age of deceased is more than 50 Years. Though the evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardize the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculations being adopted. Where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments etc.), the courts will usually take only the actual income a the time of death. A departure there from should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances.
In the case on hand, deceased N. Narayana Reddy was aged about; 38 years and he was working as a Stores Officer in M/s. Hyva India Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, I do not find any error in determination of multiplicand.
The learned Counsel for claimants has sought for enhancement of compensation on the ground that Tribunal should have taken gross salary as indicated in the salary certificate marked as Ex. P. 24. The accident in question took place on 30.01.2008. The Tribunal has taken into consideration last drawn salary of deceased and the Tribunal has added 50% of last drawn salary of deceased to arrive at the multiplicand.
The learned Counsel for claimants has relied on the salary certificate marked as Ex. P. 24, which has come into existence on 04.01.2008. The contents of Ex. P. 24 would show that deceased, if he had not met with accident, would have drawn salary of Rs. 13,780/- per month. This document has come into existence on 04.01.2008. The accident took place on 30.01.2008. This document does not disclose that decision to hike the salary was pursuant to a resolution passed by the Board of Directors. The evidence of PW3-C.M. Mohanesh. H.R. Executive of M/s. Hyva India Pvt. Ltd., reveals that deceased had worked for two and half years. If he had continued in service, he was entitled to 10% to 15% increase in salary every year, subject to his performance. Therefore, salary certificate marked as Ex. P. 24 cannot be taken into consideration. I do not find any grounds to interfere with the finding of Tribunal regarding determination of income of the deceased. The Tribunal has awarded adequate compensation under the heads "loss of consortium", "loss of love & affection" "loss to estate" and "funeral expenses". I do not find any reasons to enhance compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, MFA No. 7977/2008 is liable to be dismissed.
Regarding MVC No. 1583/2008:
Deceased P. Pankaj Kumari was aged about 26 years at the time of accident and she was not married. She did not have recognised dependents, except her parents. The claimants have produced documents to show that deceased P. Pankaj Kumari had completed matriculation. Though there is no satisfactory evidence to prove avocation of deceased, yet fact remains she was aged about 27 years and she was doing household work. The household work and services rendered by deceased cannot be undervalued. Therefore, it would be just and reasonable to determine monthly income of deceased at Rs. 2,500/- per month. Thus, annual income of deceased would be Rs. 30,000/- Thus, capitalized loss of dependency would be Rs. 3,40,000/- (Rs. 30,000/- x 1/3 x 17). The claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 2,000/- under the head "funeral expenses" and compensation of Rs. 2,500/- under the head "loss to estate". Thus, claimants in MVC No. 1583/2008 are entitled to total compensation of Rs. 3,44,500/-
In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
MFA No. 109/2010 filed by KSRTC is dismissed. MFA No. 7977/2009 filed by claimants is dismissed. MFA No. 7976/2009 is accepted in part. The award made in MVC No. 1582/2008 is modified. Compensation of Rs. 2,08,500/-awarded by Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 3,44.500/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The apportionment, payment and investment of the enhanced compensation shall be in the ratio evolved by the Tribunal. The amount deposited by KSRTC shall be transferred to Tribunal. Parties are directed to bear their costs.