AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.—Respondents 1 and 2 herein filed a claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 in MVC 820/2003 on the file of the MACT-III, D.K., Mangalore, against the appellant and others, claiming compensation on account of death of one Damodar who sustained fatal injuries in the motor vehicle accident and later succumbed. The claim petition was contested by the appellant. After trial, the MACT has allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs. 8,09,000/-. This appeal by the Insurance Company is directed against the said award.
Sri O. Mahesh, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant contended that, there is duplication of award under the head loss of dependency'' and also in awarding a sum of Rs. 1,44,000/- under the head ''loss of income'' for a period of 36 months at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- p.m. i.e., loss during the laid up period. Learned Counsel submitted that, there is excess award on account of wrong approach on the part of the MACT.
On the contrary, learned Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that, the income'' of the deceased taken by the Tribunal at Rs. 4,000/- p.m. is on a lower side, inasmuch as, the evidence on record would clearly establish that the deceased was owning two autorickshaws and he himself was a driver and had substantial income from his avocation as a driver apart from the income being owner of the autorickshaws. Learned Counsel submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the award passed by the MACT is justified and no interference is called for.
I have perused the record.
The accident, negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and the insurance coverage, are not under challenge.
In view of the rival contentions, the only point for consideration is:
Whether there is excess award made by the MACT?
Damodar sustained injuries in the accident and was taken to Omega hospital, wherein he was treated from 12.1.2003 to 31.3.2001. Thereafter wards, he took treatment at Government Wenlock hospital, Mangalore and he was an inpatient in the said hospital. Having sustained grievous injuries resulting in loss of all the 4 limbs, he was under the vegetative state of health for about 36 months having been made to sleep on a water bed. The accidental injuries, the treatment and the death are well established from the record.
The record also discloses that, the deceased Damodar was a owner of two autorickshaws and he himself was driving one of the autorickshaws. The evidence on record discloses that the relatives of the deceased i.e., the claimants have incurred an expenditure of Rs. 1,05,000/- towards medical treatment of injured Damodar. As already noticed, after the accident, the injured was alive for a considerable period and was an inpatient for about i.37 days. Looking at the condition in which he was placed i.e., with the loss of all the 4 limbs and being made to sleep on the water bed, he must have been taken care of by the attendants.
In the absence of any credible proof of the income of the deceased Damodar and considering the fact that he was a driver and was also owning two autorickshaws, his income can be taken atleast at about Rs. 4,500/- p.m. He would have spent 1/3rd of the amount towards his personal expenses and would have contributed the remaining 2/3rd to the family. The deceased was aged 36 years of age as on the date of his death. Hence, the loss of dependency is Rs.3,000/- p.m. and the multiplier applicable is 16. Thus the loss of dependency works out to Rs. 5,76,000/- (Rs. 3000/- � 12 � 16). There is loss of love and affection. That apart, the claimants have spent towards funeral and obsequies ceremonies. Hence, under the conventional heads i.e., loss of expectancy, funeral expenses etc., the claimants are entitled to be awarded Rs.40,000/-. In ail, the just entitlement of the claimants is Rs.7,35,000/-. The Tribunal has passed an excess award and hence, interference is called for.
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. In modification of the award passed by the Tribunal, it is held that, as against Rs.8,09,000/- with interest, the claimants are entitled to the compensation of Rs.7,35,000/-. The said amount shall carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. In all other respects, the award made by the Tribunal shall remain undisturbed.