AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mrs. S. Sujatha, J. - This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore [the ''Tribunal'', for short] in MVC No. 3602/ 2010.
Briefly stated the facts are:
That the appellants/claimants are widow and children of the deceased Shaik Nabisa who succumbed to the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident which occurred on 11-4-2010. The deceased was working as driver in APSRTC and drawing a salary of Rs. 12,500/-which is not in dispute. The claim petition was contested by the respondent/Corporation. The Tribunal, after analyzing the evidence on record, awarded the total compensation of Rs. 17,79,563/- with interest at 6% per annum. Being aggrieved, the claimants are before this Court as the compensation awarded being inadequate.
Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants assailing the impugned Judgment and Award, inter alia, contends that the compensation awarded under the different heads is too meager and contrary to the well established principles of law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court.
On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent/Corporation would contend that the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation considering the material evidence on record. The compensation now awarded itself is excessive, particularly, when the deceased was working as driver with the respondent, the claim would have been restricted to the compensation payable under the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923 (''W.C Act'' for short). The Tribunal having awarded compensation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (''M.V. Act'' for short) itself is on higher side. Thus, under any circumstances, the compensation now awarded cannot be considered as inadequate. It is further contended the claimants have already availed the service benefits to which they are entitled to on the death of the deceased from this respondent.
Heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the material on record.
It emerges that the factum of accident and the salary drawn by the deceased are not in dispute. It is true that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the different heads is on the lower side. It is well settled principles of law that the compensation is awarded in motor vehicle accident cases to compensate the loss. The loss borne by the claimants due to the untimely death of the deceased, the sole family earning member is irrecuperable. Considering the young age of the wife and the children of the deceased and in the case of ''Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others'', reported in 2013 [9] SCC 54, the claimants are entitled to a higher compensation under the different heads.
However, the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the respondent to the effect that the claimants having availed the service benefits from the respondent, their rights and entitlement under the M. V. Act, is limited cannot be accepted since availing of service benefits is the exclusive right of the claimants or the deceased. Even in the absence of the accident, the deceased or claimants were entitled to the benefits which would have flown for the services rendered by the deceased. It cannot be said that the service benefits would curtail the entitlement of the claimants to claim compensation under the provisions of the M. V. Act. These are two different and distinct benefits/claims.
As regards the contention that the compensation is liable to be restricted to the W.C. Act, also requires to be negated since no such arguments were advanced by the respondent nor any evidence was led in support of that contention before the Tribunal, moreover, the respondent is not in appeal challenging the judgment of the Tribunal. In the given circumstances, the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent is rejected.
Accordingly, in the light of the judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh [supra], the appellant shall be entitled to the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium: a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection; a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses. The compensation awarded under the other heads remains undisturbed.
The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified as under:
SI.No.
Particulars
Amount [in Rs.]
1
Loss of dependency
17,47,200
2
Loss of consortium
1,00,000
3
Loss of love and affection
1,00,000
4
Transportation of dead body and funeral expenses
25,000
5
Loss of estate 10,000
6
Medical treatment 2,363
Total
19,84,563
Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified to Rs. 19,84,563/- as against Rs. 17,79,563/-. The award amount shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the realization.
The apportionment and disbursement of the award amount shall be in terms of the Tribunal''s order.
In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated above.