Shakunthal M. and Others vs Murthy and Others

S.N. Satyanarayana, J.—Claimants 1 and 4 in M.V.C. No. 9290/2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore have come up in this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation for the death of B.A. Hanumanthappa who is the husband and father of appellants 1 and 2 respectively.

The brief facts leading to this appeal are as under:

"The case of the appellants and claimants 2 and 3 before the Tribunal is that deceased Hanumanthappa, who is the husband of first claimant, son of claimants 2 and 3 and father of claimant No. 4, while riding motor cycle bearing No. KA-43/J-964 was hit by another motor cycle bearing No. KA-50-E-7437 at about 6.30 p.m. on 15.11.2008. The records would disclose that in the said accident he suffered grievous injuries for which he was provided first aid treatment in Government Hospital, Doddaballapura and subsequently taken to Bangalore for further treatment. However he succumbed to the injuries. Hence, claim petition was filed by his widow, parents and minor child."

In the court below though the claimants contended that deceased Hanumanthappa was security guard, earning Rs. 10,000/- per month and that he was also carrying out agricultural activity and he was getting income out of the same, they were not able to establish either employment or income, hence the court below took his income notionally at Rs. 3,000/- and awarded compensation to the claimants in a sum of Rs. 4,59,000/- towards loss of dependency and Rs. 30,000/- compensation under conventional heads and Rs. 5,000/- towards medical expenses for the period when he was under treatment after the accident before his death. Being aggrieved by the quantum, first and fourth claimants in the claim petition have come up in this appeal.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the contesting respondents. Perused the judgment impugned. On going through the same, it is seen that the deceased Hanumanthappa was aged about 28 years as on the date of accident, he was married and his wife was pregnant and subsequently the child was born on 25.01.2009. That being the case, non-consideration of future prospects to the claimants is erroneous. In addition to that, the accident has taken place in the year 2008. The notional income which was taken at Rs. 3,000/- is on the lower side. The same should have been atleast Rs. 4,000/-. Therefore in the instant case, if the income of the deceased is taken as Rs. 4,000/- per month, with another 50% on future prospectus, his notional income would be Rs. 6000/- per month. Out of that, deducting 1/4 towards personal expenses of the deceased, what is available to claimants as loss of dependency is Rs. 4,500/- per month.

Since the deceased was aged about 28 years as on the date of accident, the relevant multiplier being 17, the compensation payable under the head loss of dependency would be Rs. 4,500 x 12 x 17 which works out to Rs. 9,18,000/-. In addition to that, claimants are also entitled to compensation under the conventional heads in a sum of Rs. 1.00 lakh towards loss of consortium to wife, loss of love and affection to minor child and aged parents and also towards loss of estate to the family as well as cost of transportation of dead body, obsequies and burial charges. In addition to that, it is seen that claimants have spent a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards medical expenses of deceased during the period when he was alive. If that is added, the total compensation the claimants entitled to would be Rs. 10,23,000/- as against Rs. 4,94,000/- awarded by the tribunal with 6% interest from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

In other words, the claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation in a sum of Rs. 5,29,000/-. Out of that, Rs. 2,29,000/- with proportionate interest is ordered to be deposited in the name of second appellant minor child namely Baby Lakshmi in any nationalized bank for a period of ten years initially with an option to renew the same for another ten years with right to first appellant Shakuntala to receive interest for her maintenance. Out of remaining balance of Rs. 3.00 lakhs, Rs. 1,50,000/- with proportionate interest be paid to first claimant Shakuntala and Rs. 75,000/- each with proportionate interest to aged parents claimants 2 and 3. Out of the compensation awarded to each of the claimants, that is first appellant and claimants 2 and 3, 80% is ordered to de deposited in any nationalized bank in their names for a period of five years with right to receive interest and balance 20% with proportionate interest is ordered to be released in their favour to meet litigation expenses, family necessities and other needs. However it is made clear that claimants are not entitled to interest for a period of 777 days delay in filing the appeal. This appeal is accordingly allowed in part. No order as to costs.