AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Budihal R.B., J.—This appeal preferred by the claimants is directed against the judgment and award dated 4.1.2011 passed in MVC No. 104/2008 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-4, Shimoga (hereinafter referred to as ''Tribunal'' for short). By its judgment and award, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,56,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization as against the claim made by the claimants, on account of the death of Praveen Kumar in the road traffic accident. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award of the Tribunal, the appellant-claimants have preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
Brief facts of the case are that, the appellants filed the claim petition u/s 166 of the MV Act seeking compensation of Rs. 25,40,000/- from the respondents in respect of death of their son Praveen Kumar in the road traffic accident said to have been taken place on 3.5.2008. On that day, the deceased left his house and proceeded towards Koppa on his motor cycle bearing registration No. KA 14/17439 in order to distribute marriage invitation cards to his relatives and at about 11.45 p.m., when he was moving with moderate speed near Sivapura village on N.H. 13, the 1st respondent being the driver of the lorry bearing registration No. KA-18/8813 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle of the deceased. Due to the impact the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to injuries on the way to hospital.
Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 appeared before the Tribunal and they filed their objections. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 contended that there was no rash and negligent act on the part of the 1st respondent in driving the lorry. However, the deceased himself came driving the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against the said lorry. The lorry was duly insured and hence sought to dismiss the petition. The 3rd respondent insurance company in its objection statement contended that the petition was not maintainable. Neither there was negligent nor rashness on the part of the driver of the lorry. There was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased i.e., the rider of the motor cycle. It has disputed the age, occupation and income of the deceased. The amount spent towards medical expenses was also disputed. It has contended that the claim was excessive and sought for dismissal of the petition.
We have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-claimants and also the learned Counsel for the respondent - insurance company.
Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, during the course of his arguments, submitted that the deceased was aged 30 years and he was a bachelor at the time of the accident. Though the deceased was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month, the Tribunal has not considered the reasonable income of the deceased and has wrongly taken the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,000/- per month, which is not just and proper. He submitted that even the Tribunal has not awarded adequate compensation on the other heads. He further submitted to reassess the monthly income of the deceased and to award reasonable and just income towards loss of dependency and also on the other heads.
As against this, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent insurance company during the course of his arguments submitted that the Tribunal has taken into consideration the oral and documentary evidence placed on record and has come to the right conclusion in awarding the compensation. No illegality has been committed by the Tribunal and there is no necessity to interfere with the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and on considering the materials on record, the point that arise for our consideration is as follows:
Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?
We have perused the pleadings of the parties, oral evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 and the documents at Exs. P. 1 to P. 15 and Exs. R. 1 to 3 produced before the Tribunal and perused the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
It is the contention of the appellant before the Tribunal that the deceased was aged 30 years old and he was a bachelor. He was an agriculturist and also doing business earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. P.Ws. 1 and 2 in their oral evidence have deposed the said fact. Even then, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,000/- per month on the ground that the appellants have not produced any documents in support of their contention that the deceased was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. Though the appellants have not produced any documents to show that the deceased was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month, they are still entitled to get the just and reasonable compensation. The deceased left his parents, the appellants herein, who have lost love and affection of their son. In the circumstances, the income assessed at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per month by the Tribunal is on the lower side. We deem fit to assess the monthly income at Rs. 5,000/-. Since, the deceased is a bachelor, out of the income of Rs. 5,000/- per month, 50% is deducted towards his personal expenses and the balance comes to Rs. 2,500/- per month. The mother of the deceased is aged 45 years. The appropriate multiplier applicable is 14. Therefore, the compensation comes to Rs. 4,20,000/- (Rs. 2,500 x 12 x 14) towards loss of dependency. The appellants are also entitled to Rs. 45,000/- under the conventional heads such as loss of love and affection, loss of estate, transportation and funeral expenses. In all, the appellants are entitled to Rs. 4,65,000/- as against Rs. 3,56,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation comes to Rs. 1,09,000/-. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 4.1.2011 passed in MVC No. 104/2008 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-4, Shimoga, is hereby modified. The appellants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,09,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization.
The respondent-insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,09,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Out of the enhanced compensation, Rs. 50,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank, in the name of the appellant No. 2 for a period of ten years and renewable for another five years, with liberty to her to withdraw the interest accrued on it.
The remaining Rs. 59,000/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 in equal proportion immediately, on deposit by the insurance company.
Draw the award, accordingly.