AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. Manohar, J.—Appellants are the claimants, being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in MVC No. 23/2001, dated 01.09.2007 by the I Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) and CJM, Dharwad have filed this appeal. seeking enhancement of the compensation. Appellants are the parents of the deceased. They filed a claim petition u/s 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation on account of death of their son in the road traffic accident occurred on 01-11-1996 on P.B. Road, near Gandhinagar, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the goods Tempo bearing registration No. KA-29/1200. In the claim petition, it was contended that the deceased was studying in final year B.A. and also doing part time work in BEE''s company and getting salary of Rs. 1,500/- p.m. and also conducting tuition classes to the 7th to 10th standard students and earning Rs. 1,000/- p.m. The claimants at their old age have lost their son. Hence, they sought for compensation of Rs. 4,25,000/-.
The respondents entered appearance and filed objections contending that due to the negligence on the part of the deceased, he died on Pune-Bangalore road, the compensation claimed by the claimants is exorbitant and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
The court below after examining the matter held that due to the rash and negligent driving of the goods vehicle by its driver, the accident had occurred and the claimants are the parents of the deceased and are entitled for compensation. The court below taking into consideration income of the deceased at Rs. 1,500/- p.m. and deducting 50% towards his personal expenditure awarded compensation of Rs. 1,08,000/- towards loss of income, Rs. 10,000/- towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses; and Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of love and affections. In all, the court below has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,38,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. However, denied the interest from 12-08-2002 to 13-06-2007 on the ground that the claimants had dragged on the matter. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the court below awarding meager compensation and denying the interest for the aforesaid period, the claimants have filed this appeal.
Sri. Dayanand M. Bandi, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the judgment and award passed by the court below is contrary to law. The claim petition filed was u/s 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. However, the court below assessed the compensation u/s 166A of the Motor Vehicles Act, which is contrary to law. The court below has not followed the structured formula. The standard deduction has to be made to an extent of 1/3 and multiplier has to be applied taking into consideration the age of the deceased. Further, the denial of interest for a period of five years is contrary to law. There is no default on the part of the claimants. The sitting of the Judge was not there in that court. In view of that, the matter was dragged on and there is no role of the claimants in dragging the matter. Hence sought for setting aside the judgment and award passed by the court below and to award appropriate compensation, by allowing the appeal.
On the other hand, Laxman B. Mannodar, learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company contended that the compensation awarded by the court below is not in accordance with Section 163A of the MV Act and sought for reassessment of the compensation.
I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties, perused the judgment and, award, oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties.
Due to the rash and negligent driving of the goods Tempo by its driver, son of the claimants died in the accident occurred on 01-11-1996 on P.B. Road near Gandhinagar. The court below after examining the matter held that due to the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the goods tempo, the accident had occurred. With regard to the quantum of compensation is concerned, the procedure adopted by the court below is contrary to law. u/s 163A of the MV Act, structured formula basis as indicated in the II Schedule of the Act is to be followed. The table contained in the II Schedule prescribes the compensation to be awarded with reference to the age and income of the deceased. It further provides multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased. It also provides the standard deduction as 1/3 on account of the personal living expenses of the deceased. In the instant case, though the materials have been produced before the court that the deceased was earning Rs. 2,500/- p.m., the court below has taken the income at Rs. 1,500/- p.m. and deducted 50% towards his personal expenditure and applying the multiplier 12 has awarded compensation. Further the compensation awarded towards transportation, funeral expenses and love and affection is also contrary to Section 163A of the MV Act.
The records clearly disclose that the deceased was earning Rs. 1,500/- by doing typing work in a Private Firm and Rs. 1,000/- by giving tuition to 7th to 10th standard students. Hence, the income of the deceased to be taken at Rs. 2,500/- p.m. deducting 1/3 towards his personal expenditure and applying multiplier 17, the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs. 3,40,068/- (2500 - 833 = 1667 x 12 x 17) and the claimants are also entitled to a sum of Rs. 4,500/- towards conventional heads. In all, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 3,44,568/- as against Rs. 1,38,000/- awarded by the court below. Further denial of interest from 12-08-2002 to 13-06-2007 is contrary to evidence on record. Admittedly, the claim petition was filed in the year 2001, the matter was posted for evidence of the parties on 12-08-2002. For some period, the Judge was not posted. For many reasons, the parties have not lead evidence. The delay in recording the evidence cannot be fastened on the claimants alone. Hence, the claimants are entitled to interest from the date of filing of the claim petition. Hence, denial of interest by the court below is set aside. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
The appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 1-9-2007 made in MVC No. 23/2001 passed by the I Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and CJM, Dharwad is modified and the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs. 3,44,568/- as against Rs. 1,38,000/- awarded by the court below, with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization.
Out of the compensation amount, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- each, with proportionate interest shall be deposited in the Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized Bank for a period of 5 years in the name of the appellants. The first appellant shall withdraw the interest periodically.
Remaining amount with accrued interest shall be released in the name of the first appellant.