AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the claimants is directed against the judgment and award dated 7th August 2010, passed in MVC No. 277/2009 (old MVC No. 608/2009), by the VI Additional District Judge & Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mysore, (for short, ''Tribunal'') for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 2,43,000/- awarded in favour of the claimants as against their claim for Rs. 19,05,000/-, is inadequate. The facts in brief are that, the claimants are the parents of deceased Mahesh. They filed the claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that at about 05:00 P.M., on 23-04-2009, near Kiralu Cross Road, T. Narasipura Road, when the deceased Mahesh was travelling in a Bus bearing Registration No. KA-12/2282 from Mysore towards T. Narasipura, the driver of the said Bus drove the same at high Speed, in a rash and negligent manner and on account of the same, the deceased Mahesh, who was standing in the bus, was thrown out and fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to K.R. Hospital, Mysore and admitted as inpatient there, but unfortunately, he succumbed to the injuries on 24-04-2009 in the Hospital, while undergoing treatment.
It is the case of the appellants that, the deceased was aged about 20 years and a mason, earning a sum of Rs. 250/- to Rs. 300/- per day and was hale and healthy prior to the accident. On account of the untimely death of the deceased late Mahesh, the claimants/appellants/parents have lost the love and affection, social and moral support apart from financial security and therefore, they have to be compensated reasonably.
On account of the death of the deceased, the appellants filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, seeking compensation against the respondents. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 7th August, 2010. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, awarding a sum of Rs. 2,43,000/- under different heads, with 6% interest per annum, from the date of petition till the date of payment. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants are in appeal before this Court, seeking enhancement of compensation.
We have gone through the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal and heard learned counsel appearing for appellants and learned counsel appearing for Insurer, for quite some time.
The submission of the learned counsel appearing for appellant at the outset is that, the claimants are the parents of deceased and were entirely dependent on the income of the deceased and therefore, the Tribunal is not justified in assessing the income of the deceased at only Rs. 3,000/-per month. Because of the untimely and unnatural death of the deceased, the parents have been deprived of seeing the future progress of their son and are totally in financial crisis. Further, he submitted that the Tribunal grossly erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards conventional heads also and a sum of Rs. 9,000/- awarded towards the said heads is very meager and the claimants are entitled to a minimum of Rs. 45,000/- under the conventional heads. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal is liable to be modified by enhancing the compensation reasonably.
As against this, learned counsel appearing for Insurer sought to justify the impugned judgment and award stating that the same is passed after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file and the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased having regard to his age, avocation and the year of accident and also rightly deducted 50% towards his personal expenses as he was a bachelor.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, and after careful perusal of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the only point that arise for our consideration in this appeal is,
Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal is just and reasonable?
The undisputed facts of the case are the occurrence of accident and the resultant death of the deceased. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was aged about 20 years and a mason, by profession. It is stated that he was earning not less than Rs. 250/- to Rs. 300/- per day. But, to substantiate the same, the appellants have not produced any credible documentary evidence. But, it can be seen that the Tribunal is also not justified in assessing the income of the deceased at only Rs. 3,000/- per month. The same is on the lower side and needs to be re-assessed. The accident is of the year 2009. Therefore, having regard to the age, avocation, number of dependents and also the year of accident, we re-assess the income of the deceased at Rs. 5,000/- per month, to meet the ends of justice. Having regard to the number of dependents being two and since the deceased was a bachelor, we deduct 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased. Accordingly, If 50% (i.e. Rs. 2,500/-) is deducted from Rs. 5,000/- towards his personal expenses, the net income would be Rs. 2,500/- per month. The deceased was aged about 20 years. As per the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, , the age of younger parent of the. deceased should be taken into consideration for adopting the multiplier, for calculating loss of dependency. Accordingly, for the age of the mother of the deceased being 50 years, the proper multiplier applicable is ''13'' as rightly adopted by Tribunal. Thus, the compensation towards loss of dependency would work out to Rs. 3,90,000/- (i.e. Rs. 2,500/- x 12 x''13'') as against Rs. 2,34,000/- awarded by Tribunal.
Further, the Tribunal has erred in awarding only a sum of Rs. 9,000/- towards conventional heads. The same is on the lower side. As per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma''s case (supra), we award a sum of Rs. 45,000/- towards conventional heads, such as loss of estate, loss of love and affection and transportation and funeral expenses as against Rs. 9,000/- awarded by Tribunal, Thus the total compensation works out to Rs. 4,35,000/- as against Rs. 2,43,000/- awarded by Tribunal. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the appeal filed by appellants is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 7th August 2010, passed in MVC No. 277/2009 (old MVC No. 608/2009), by the VI Additional District Judge & Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mysore, is hereby modified, awarding a sum of Rs. 4,35,000/- as against Rs. 2,43,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at 6% per annum on the enhanced sum, from the date of petition till the date of realization, excluding interest for the delayed period of 356 days in filing the appeal. Thus, there would be enhancement, of compensation by a sum of Rs. 1,92,000/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.
The 2nd respondent - Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,92,000/-, with interest thereon at 6% per annum, excluding interest for the delayed period of 356 days in filing the appeal. within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment.
Immediately on such deposit by the Insurance Company, a sum of Rs. 90,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the name of appellant No. 1, in Fixed Deposit, in any scheduled/Nationalized Bank, for a period of ten years, renewable by five years, with liberty reserved to her to withdraw the periodical interest.
A sum of Rs. 50,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the name of appellant No. 2, in Fixed Deposit, in any scheduled/Nationalized Bank, for a period of five years, renewable by five years, with liberty reserved to him to withdraw the periodical interest.
Remaining sum of Rs. 52,000/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of both the appellants, in equal proportion, immediately.
Office to draw award accordingly.