Shubharekha and Others vs I. Bavhunni and Others

S.N. Satyanarayana, J—The claimants in MVC. No. 1502/2006 on the file of MACT, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, have come up in this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. Though this appeal has come up for admission, since lower court record is received, at the request of counsel for the parties it is taken up for final disposal. The proceeding in MVC. No. 1502/2006 is initiated by the children of deceased K. Narayana Moolya seeking compensation for the death of their father. The material on record would disclose that on 14.5.2006 at about 11.30 a.m., when deceased K. Narayana Moolya was travelling in Tata 407 tempo bearing registration No. KA-20/5795, the said tempo met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of its driver resulting in his instant death. It is stated that immediately after accident his wife also died. Thereafter, the three children of deceased K. Narayana Moolya who were minors then filed the claim petition through their paternal grandmother - 4th claimant and all of them together sought compensation for the death of K. Narayana Moolya.

In the claim proceeding, it was contended by the claimants that deceased was carrying on coconut business and was earning a sum of Rs. 8,000/- p.m., out of that major portion was spent for the family. However, there are no documents available on record to show the nature of business and income of deceased. However, the tribunal considering his notional income at Rs. 5,000/- p.m., and age as 45 years believing the evidence of PW. 1, who is maternal uncle of claimants 1 to 3 and by applying multiplier of 14 proceeded to award compensation in a sum of Rs. 6,30,000/- towards loss of dependency and another sum of Rs. 20,000/- under conventional heads.

Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the claimants have come up in this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation on more than one ground. First one is that deceased Narayana Moolya had taken a shop from Municipal Corporation, Mangalore, where he was running the business, which is produced and marked as Ex. P 11 is not looked into by the tribunal. The next one is that Ex. P9, the ration card which was issued in the year 2006 would indicate the age of deceased Narayana Moolya as 39 years. In that view of the matter, the tribunal ought to have taken his age as 39 years and should have applied the multiplier 15. Instead, the evidence of P.W.1, who is a relative of deceased and who did not have personal knowledge of the actual age of deceased is believed to hold that deceased was aged 45 years at the relevant time, which is incorrect. Hence, the compensation to be granted is required to be considered taking the income of deceased at Rs. 8,000/- p.m., as he was a businessman and multiplier of 15 should be taken by taking his age as 39 years as on the date of his death.

This Court after hearing the learned counsel for parties looked into the documents at Exs. P9 and P11 available on record. Ex. P11 is carbon copy of agreement, which is on a plain paper to which photograph of the lessee was attached earlier and subsequently torn from the document. When the said document which was in the lower court record is looked into, the photograph is removed thereby this Court is unable to know whether it is with reference to the same Narayana Moolya or some body else in the absence of photograph which was affixed to the said document. Therefore doubt arises as to whether the said document could be relied in this proceeding when said photograph is missing. Hence, said document is not looked into. In the absence of document, what is left to this Court is to accept the finding of tribunal in taking the notional income of deceased at Rs. 5,000/- p.m.

Now coming to document at Ex. P9, this Court accepts the contention of learned counsel for appellant and takes the age of deceased as 39 years as on the relevant date of accident and accordingly, multiplier of 15 is applied to case in hand. With this, if compensation is calculated afresh, the claimants are entitled to compensation towards loss of dependency at Rs. 6,75,000/- (Rs. 5,000/- x 3/4 x 12 x 15). In addition, they are also entitled to compensation towards love and affection, transportation of dead body and obsequies expenses at Rs. 75,000/-. Thus, the total compensation would be Rs. 7,50,000/- as against Rs. 6,50,000/- awarded by the tribunal, in other words, they are entitled to receive enhanced compensation in a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 28.7.2010 passed in MVC No. 1502/2006 on the file of MACT, Dakshina Kannada, is modified. The compensation awarded by tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 7,50,000/-, in other words enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- payable with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till date of payment of entire amount, which the respondent insurance company shall deposit within eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of judgment in this proceeding.

It is made clear that from out of the enhanced compensation, each of the claimants are entitled to Rs. 25,000/- with proportionate interest.