Reliance General Insurance Company Limited vs Puttalingamma and Others

R.S. Chauhan, J.—1. The Reliance General Insurance Company Limited has challenged the legality of the award dated 28.04.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Bangalore (SCCH-16) in MVC. No. 812/08.

Briefly the facts of the case are that on 19.1.2008 at around 9.40 a.m. Smt. Deveeramma, mother of respondent No. 1, and grand- mother of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, was crossing the Kanakapura Main Road opposite the M.M. Tools Factory, Bangalore. While she was crossing the road carefully and cautiously, a TATA Mobile car, bearing Registration No. KA-43-304, being driven rashly and negligently, dashed against Deveramma. During her medical treatment on 20.1.2008, she succumbed to her injuries. Consequently respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal. The respondent examined one witness, and submitted seven documents. The Insurance company neither examined any witness, nor submitted any document. After going through the oral and documentary evidence the learned Tribunal granted a compensation of Rs. 2,39,000/- along with 6% interest per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization to the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Hence, this appeal before this Court.

Mr. H.S. Lingaraju, the learned counsel for the appellant, has pleaded that according to the claimant-respondent No. 1, Deveramma was 60 years old. However, the claimant-respondent No. 1 had shown her own age as 50 years while filing the claim petition. Moreover even respondents-claimant Nos. 2 and 3 were shown to be aged 27 and 24 years respectively. According to the learned counsel, it would be nearly impossible for Deveramma to give birth to respondent-claimant No. 1 at the tender age of 10 years. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the learned Tribunal has erred in taking Deveramma''s age as 60 years at the time of accident. According to him, her age should have been taken anywhere from 66 to 70 years. Thus, the multiplier of 5 should have been applied, instead of applying the multiplier of 9 as done by the learned Tribunal. Hence, according to the learned counsel the very basis for calculating the compensation for loss of estate is misplaced.

While the learned counsel for the respondents has not opposed that the wrong age of Deveramma has been accepted by the Tribunal, but, he has pleaded that Deveramma''s income has been wrongly taken by the learned Tribunal as Rs. 2,000/-. Moreover, the compensation paid under other conventional heads is on the lower side.

In rejoinder, the learned counsel for the appellant pleads that since the respondents have neither filed a counter-objection, nor filed an appeal challenging the impugned award, the learned counsel for the respondents cannot question the income taken by the learned Tribunal, or the grant of compensation under other conventional heads.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award.

A bare perusal of the cause title of the impugned award clearly reveals that claimants-respondent Nos. 1 to 3 had given their ages as 50, 27 and 24 years respectively. The claimant-Respondent No. 1 had claimed that she is the daughter of Deveramma, yet she had claimed her mother''s age as 60 years old as on the date of the accident. It would be medically impossible for Deveramma to give birth to a child at the age of 10 years old. This aspect of discrepancy with regard to the age of deceased Deveramma and the age of her daughter namely claimant-respondent No. 1 has escaped the notice of the learned Tribunal. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has erred in taking Deveramma''s age as 60 years old, and in applying the multiplier of 9. In fact, it would be safer to presume that age of Deveramma was somewhere between 66 to 70 years. If indeed the age of claimant-respondent No. 1 was 50 years, at the time of filing of the claim petition, there is a distinct possibility that Deveramma may have given birth to claimant-respondent No. 1 at the age of 16 to 20 years. Therefore, the multiplier of 5 should have been applied by the learned Tribunal, instead of applying a multiplier of 9.

Hence, while calculating the loss of estate, if multiplier of 5 is taken, it works out to Rs. 2,000 x 12 x 5 = Rs. 1,20,000. Thus, the claimants-respondents would be entitled to merely Rs. 1,20,000/- as "the loss of estate", whereas the learned Tribunal has granted them a compensation of Rs. 2,16,000/- for "loss of estate".

As far as the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respondents are concerned, suffice it to say that the aforesaid contentions cannot be accepted by this Court. In case the respondents-claimants were aggrieved by the quantum of income taken by the learned Tribunal, and also aggrieved by the quantum of compensation paid to them under other conventional heads, they ought to have filed cross-objections to the present appeal. Since they have failed to do so, the learned counsel for the respondents is not justified in raising any contentions with regard to Deveramma''s income, or with regard to the quantum of compensation paid under other conventional heads.

Therefore, without touching the other compensations paid to the claimants-respondents by the learned Tribunal, this Court reduces compensation towards "loss of estate" from Rs. 2,16,000/- to Rs. 1,20,000/-. Hence, claimants-respondents are entitled to receive compensation of merely Rs. 1,43,000/-.

Since there was absolute stay granted by this Court, the Insurance company has not deposited any amount of the compensation with the Tribunal. Hence, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is directed to pay compensation of merely Rs. 1,43,000/- along with interest of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment of the said amount. The compensation amount shall be paid by the Insurance Company in the form of D.D. in the name of claimants-respondents. The said exercise shall be carried out within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order by the Insurance Company. The amount deposited by the Insurance Company before this Court shall be transferred to the Tribunal immediately.

The appeal is allowed.