AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P Sree Sudha, J
CAV JUDGMENT
M.F.A. No.1021/2019 is filed by the claimants against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2018 passed by the XXII Additional Small Causes Judge and Member, MACT, Bengaluru in MVC No.4989/2017. M.F.A. No.7193/2018 is filed by the Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (BMTC) challenging the aforesaid judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
The facts of the case is that on 11.08.2017 at about 7.45 a.m., one Ramanjaneyalu (deceased), while he was crossing J.C. Road, near Ravindra Kalakshetra, Bengaluru, a BMTC bus bearing registration No.KA-01-F-4355 driven by its driver, at high speed, in rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased. Due to the said accident, the deceased died on the spot. His wife, his minor daughter, his parents and his brother filed a claim application claiming compensation of Rs.40,00,000/-. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record, granted RS.18,73,200/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.
Aggrieved by the said judgment, the claimants have preferred M.F.A. No.1021/2019 mainly contending that the deceased was aged about 27 years at the time of accident and he was working as House Keeper at White Glove Properties and Estates Private Limited, Bengaluru, earning the gross salary of Rs.11,690/- per month. The claimants examined P.W.2 and produced pay slip (Ex.P.15) and the Tribunal had to deduct PF and professional tax, but wrongly taken the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.9,471/-. Therefore, requested for enhancement in the compensation. The claimants have also requested enhancement in the rate of interest at 8% per annum to 12% per annum.
M.F.A. No.7193/2018 is filed by the BMTC against the same judgment in which they disputed the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. It was stated that the deceased Ramanjaneyalu was crossing the road, where there was no zebra crossing from west to east direction, and dashed the motorcycle which was moving by the side of the road and fell down. Thus, there is negligence on the part of the deceased and not on the part of the driver of the bus. The brother of the deceased gave the complaint and he was not an eyewitness to the incident. It is further contended that the rider of the motorcycle is the best person to narrate the incident, but he was not examined. Ex.P.6-IMV report shows scratch marks found on the front right side bumper, right side rear body of the bus and scratch marks on the front right side headlight dome cover, and front right side body of the motorcycle damaged. There was no major damage to the front bumper of the bus and therefore, it shows that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. Under Ex.P.15-pay slip, Rs.685/- shows for conveyance allowance, Rs.1700/- for washing allowance and thus, an amount of Rs.7,799/- per month is to be taken instead of Rs.9,471/- per month and the rate of interest at 8% per annum is also to be reduced. It is further contended that the deceased joined service just 1 month 19 days prior to the date of accident and he was on probation. Therefore, he cannot be considered as a permanent employee and requested for reduction in the compensation.
Heard the arguments of both sides.
The claimants filed the copy of FIR, complaint, charge sheet, sketch, spot mahazer, IMV report, post mortem report and inquest report as per Exs.P1 to P8. The complaint was given by the brother of the deceased. It is argued that the brother of the deceased is not an eye witness to the occurrence. However, the charge sheet is filed against the driver of the bus after conducting investigation. Respondent-BMTC examined R.W.1-driver of the bus, who has stated that there was no negligence on his part, but he has not given any complaint to the depot manager immediately after the accident and the charge sheet was not challenged by the BMTC.
Learned counsel for the BMTC has mainly relied upon the IMV report, in which no damage was caused to the front bumper of the bus. Learned counsel for the BMTC contended that owner of the scooter is the proper person and he was not examined by the petitioner-claimants as they disputed the liability and they have also not taken any steps to examine the said rider of the motorcycle. Considering the prima facie evidence before the Tribunal, it was held that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and the BMTC was held liable to pay the compensation. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the said finding. Accordingly, it is held that the BMTC is liable to pay the compensation.
The deceased met with an accident on 11.08.2017. As per the appointment order, the deceased was getting a basic wage of Rs.7,621/- and with other allowances. The pay slips for the month of June, July and August, 2017 were filed. As per the pay slip for the month of July 2017, the deceased was getting a salary of Rs.11,690/-. After deducting PF, ESI and loan amount, he was getting net pay of Rs.9,471/- per month. The petitioners-claimants contended that only PF and professional tax have to be deducted from the gross salary, but in the pay slip, professional tax is not shown. After deducting the provident fund of Rs.915/-, the net income comes to Rs.10,775/- (11,690-915).
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the dictum of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680, held that the future prospects of income of the deceased in respect of permanent job, shall also be included in determination of the compensation. Thus, considering the age of the deceased, 40% of the income has to be added towards future prospects. Thus, the amount would become Rs.15,085/- per month (10,775+4310 ). As per the guidelines of the Hon’ble Apex Court in dictum of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121, 1/4th of his income has to be deducted. Thus, the income of the deceased after deducting personal expenses comes to Rs.11,314/- per month (15,085-3771). The deceased was aged 27 years at the time of accident. Therefore, the multiplier would have taken is 17. Accordingly, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.23,08,056/- (11,314 x 12 x 17).
Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, by reiterating the comprehensive interpretation of ‘consortium’ given in the authority of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & others (2018) 18 SCC 130, and in the authority between United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others (2020) 9 SCC 644, fortified that the amounts for loss of consortium shall be awarded to the children who lose the care and protection of their parents as ‘parental consortium’ and to the parents as, ‘filial consortium’ for the loss of their grown-up children, to compensate their agony, love and affection, care and companionship of deceased children. Accordingly, the wife of the deceased is entitled for Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium and his minor daughter, aged 4 months at the time of filing the petition, is entitled for Rs.40,000/- for parental consortium and petitioner Nos.3 and 4-parents of the deceased, each of them, are entitled for the amount of Rs.40,000/-towards filial consortium. The third petitioner-claimant, being the brother of the deceased, is not dependent on the deceased and he is dependent on his father. Therefore, he is not entitled for any compensation.
The claimants are also entitled for Rs.15,000/-towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Rate of interest is also modified as 6% instead of 8% per annum.
The award of compensation passed by the Tribunal is modified as under:
Heads
Amount in Rs.
Loss of Dependency
23,08,056/-
Loss of Estate
15,000/-
Loss of Consortium (Rs.40,000X4)
1,60,000/-
Towards Funeral Expenses
15,000/-
Total
24,98,056/-
In all, the claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs.24,98,056/- with interest at 6% per annum as against the compensation of Rs.18,73,200/- awarded by the Tribunal.
In the result, the following order is passed:
(i) Both appeals are allowed in part.
(ii) The Claimants are entitled for the total compensation of Rs.24,98,056/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.
(iii) Out of the aforesaid compensation, claimants No.3 and 4 (parents of deceased) are entitled for Rs.2,50,000/-each and they are permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest.
(iv) Out of the balance amount, Rs.12 lakhs is to be kept in F.D. in any nationalised bank in the name of claimant No.2 (minor child of the deceased), till she attains the age of majority. Claimant No.1-wife of the deceased is also permitted to withdraw interest once in 3 months to meet the expenses of the minor child.
(v) Claimant No.1-wife of the deceased is permitted to withdraw the balance amount along with interest.
(vi) The appellant-BMTC is directed to deposit the aforesaid compensation amount within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
(vii) The statutory deposit of Rs.25,000/- is directed to be transferred to the Tribunal.