AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil, J.—This is an appeal filed by insurer and the cross-objector on account of the death of the deceased Anandayya @ Anand in a road traffic accident directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 31/03/2006 in MVC. No. 187/2004 on the file of Addl. MACT., Saundatti at Ramdurg. The Tribunal in its impugned judgment and award has awarded a sum of Rs. 8,85,000/- with 8% per annum. The compensation awarded is disproportionate and excessive and it requires reduction as contended by the insurer, whereas the cross-objector contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and it requires enhancement and hence this appeal and cross-objection.
The brief facts of the case are -
The cross-objectors/the claimants are parents of the deceased Sri. Anandayya @ Anand, contending that, the deceased was an electrician aged about 22 years doing electrical work under the KPTCL after obtaining necessary license from jurisdictional competent authority of the State Government and also owning agricultural land he is a bread earner in the family and on account of the death of the deceased, the future of claimants/cross-objectors has been jeopardized, their hopes and security has been deprived. On the fatal day at about 10.30 p.m. on 26/11/2003, the accident has occurred on Badami-Ramdurga road, due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. On account of the death of the deceased the Appellants No. 1 and 2, father and mother have filed a claim petition u/s 166 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming total compensation of Rs. 37,30,000/- against the Appellant insured and offending owner of the vehicle. The said matter had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence and other relevant material on the file has allowed the same in part awarding a sum of Rs. 8,85,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.
The said compensation awarded by the Tribunal is disproportionate and excessive and liable to be reduced as contended by the insurer, whereas the claimants contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is insufficient and it requires enhancement. Being dissatisfied claimants have thought fit to file cross-objection seeking enhancement, the insurer and the claimant felt necessitated to file the present appeal and cross-objection.
We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for Appellants and cross-objectors for a considerable length of time. After careful evaluation of the entire original records available on the file and on perusal of the impugned judgment and award, what emerges is that, it is not in dispute on account of the injuries sustained in the accident the said Anandayya succumbed to the injury. The deceased was aged about 22 years was young, energetic and enterprising doing electrical contract work in different places after having qualified and obtaining necessary license. The Tribunal has committed an error in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 10,000/- per month without assigning any valid reasons nor the Appellants have produced any authenticated documents to establish that he is getting income of Rs. 10,000/- per month from different sources. Except producing Ex.P-9, 10, 11 and Ex.P-12 to 20 show that he was doing electrical work in different places under the KPTCL. Having regard to his age, occupation, with reference to Ex.P-6 to 20, we can safely assess the income of deceased at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month to meet the ends of justice. Out of which 1/3rd (i.e. a sum of Rs. 1,666/.- out of Rs. 5,000/-) shall be deducted towards personal expense of the deceased. The net income comes to Rs. 3,334/-, the younger age of the parents may be taken into consideration, the mother is aged about 42 years as on the date of accident. The appropriate multiplier applicable is 14. In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in case of (Sarala Verma and Ors v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr.) reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 and accordingly we predetermine the loss of dependency at Rs. 5,60,112 (Rs. 3,334 x 12 x 14). Further, the Tribunal has rightly awarded a just and reasonable compensation of Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs. 5,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses and hence the interference is not called for.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified as under;
1.
Loss of dependency
Rs. 5,60,112/-
2.
Loss of estate
Rs. 0,20,000/-
3.
Loss of love and affection
Rs. 0,20,000/-
4.
Transportation, funeral expenses
Rs. 0,05,000/-
Total
Rs. 6,05,112/-
(i) The total compensation of Rs. 6,05,112/- is awarded as against Rs. 8,85,000/-. The compensation is reduced by Rs. 2,79,888/-.
(ii) The appeal filed by the insurer is allowed in part. The Cross-objection filed by the Cross-objectors is modified. The appeal and cross objection stands disposed of.
(iii) Out of the compensation awarded Rs. 6,05,112/-, Rs. 3,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be deposited in the name of 2nd claimant in a Nationalized Bank/ Scheduled Bank for a period of five years renewable for another period of five years.
(iv) The 2nd Respondent/claimant No. 2 is permitted to withdraw the interest periodically.
(v) Further a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be deposited in the name of 1st Respondent/claimant in a Nationalized Bank/Scheduled Bank for a period of five years renewable for another period of five years. The 1st Respondent-claimant is permitted to withdraw the interest periodically.
(vi) The remaining amount of Rs. 1,05,112/- with proportionate interest shall be released in equal proportion in the name of Respondents No. 1 and 2 immediately on depositing the remaining compensation amount by the Appellant-Insurance Company.
Draw the award accordingly.