AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the claimants is directed against the judgment and award dated 3rd March 2011, passed in MVC No. 641/2009, by the XIII Additional Small Causes Judge, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore (SCCH-15), (for short, ''Tribunal''), seeking enhancement of compensation, on the ground that the compensation awarded by Tribunal in their favour is inadequate and needs to be enhanced. The facts in brief are that, the claimant No. 1 is the wife, claimant Nos. 2 and 3 are the minor children and Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are the parents of deceased, Nagaraju. They filed the claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that, at about 5:00 P.M. on 15-02-2008, when the deceased Nagaraju was riding Moped bearing Registration No. KA-40/J-4789 near Muddareddyhalli cross of Gudibanda Taluk, Chikkaballapur District on NH-7 Road, i.e. Hyderabad-Bangalore Road, at that time, a Tata Ace Tempo came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle ridden by the deceased. Due to the impact, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately he was shifted to Government Hospital, Chickballapur for first aid treatment and thereafter shifted to NIMHANS and again referred to St. Johns Hospital and Rajshekar Hospital for further treatment. But, unfortunately, in spite of the best treatment, he could be saved and he succumbed to the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident on 03-03-2008, after nearly 18 days.
It is the case of the claimants that, the deceased was aged about 40 years and working as a First Division Surveyor'' at Revenue Department, Gudibanda Taluk, Chikkaballapur District and hale and healthy prior to the accident. On account of the untimely and unnatural death of the deceased Nagaraju, the first claimant-wife has lost her life partner at a very young age, claimant Nos. 2 and 3 - minor children have lost the love and affection, inspiration and guidance and Respondents 3 and 4 - parents of deceased, being aged about 65 years and 71 years as on the date of accident have lost the social, financial and moral support and therefore, they have to be compensated reasonably.
On account of the death of the deceased Nagaraju, the claimants filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, seeking compensation against the Insurer of the offending vehicle and others. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 3rd March, 2011. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, awarding a sum of Rs. 20,79,550/-, under different heads, with 6% interest per annum, from the date of petition till the date of payment. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants are in appeal before this Court, seeking enhancement of compensation.
We have gone through the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal filed by claimants and also the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal and heard the learned counsel appearing for the claimants and the Insurer, for considerable length of time.
Smt. Suguna R. Reddy, learned counsel appearing for claimants, at the outset submitted that, the Tribunal grossly erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards loss of dependency as also under conventional heads on account of the death of the deceased Nagaraju in the road traffic accident. To substantiate the said submission, she is quick to point out that the deceased was aged about only 40 years as on the date of accident and hale and healthy prior to the accident and was in a secured job working as ''First Division Surveyor'' in Revenue Department, drawing salary of Rs. 10,987/- per month as per Ex. P12. In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, , the only admissible deductions are professional tax and income tax and the claimants are entitled to additional 30% towards future prospects of deceased. Therefore, reasonable income may be reassessed, 30% may be added to it and 1/4th may be deducted towards the personable expenses of the deceased and reasonable compensation may be awarded towards loss of dependency as also under conventional heads.
Further learned counsel appearing for claimants vehemently submitted that the Tribunal is not justified in apportioning the compensation awarded by Tribunal in favour of the Respondent No. 4 - father of the deceased at Rs. 3,00,000/-. The same cannot be sustained and liable to be set aside or at least reduced considerably for the reason that, he is not a dependent and has other sons to take care of and the said amount may be re-apportioned in favour of the two minor children of deceased as the claimant No. 1 - wife of deceased has to bring them up single handedly. However, so far as a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- apportioned in favour of the Respondent No. 3 - mother of deceased is concerned, she fairly submitted that she has no objection for the same and the same may not be interfered with. Therefore, she submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal is liable to be modified accordingly.
As against this, Shri. A. Ravishankar, learned counsel appearing for Insurer, inter alia contended and submitted that the Tribunal, after due consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, considering the age, avocation, year of accident and the facts and circumstances of the case, has rightly awarded compensation towards loss of dependency by adding 30% towards future prospects as per Apex Court decision in Sarla Verma''s case as also under conventional heads and towards medical and incidental expenses. Hence, interference in the same is not called for.
Further, learned counsel appearing for Respondents 3 and 4/parents of deceased inter alia contended and substantiated the apportionment ordered by Tribunal at Rs. 3,00,000/- each in favour of respondents 3 and 4. He submitted that the parents were aged about 65 years and 71 years have son their bright son and are also deprived to see his progress and they do not have any body else to look after as the other son is also not staying with them and thus the compensation apportioned is the only source of income to them to eek their livelihood. He further submitted that already sufficient compensation has apportioned in favour of the wife and the minor children and the aged parents were also entirely dependent on the income of the deceased, which they have lost due to the untimely and unnatural death of the deceased. Therefore, he vehemently submitted that interference in the apportionment ordered by Tribunal in respect of the respondents 3 and 4 at Rs. 3,00,000/- each is uncalled for.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, after careful perusal of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and after going through the original records made available, the only point that arise for our consideration this appeal is:
Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal is just and reasonable?
After going through the entire material available on file, it can be seen that, the occurrence of accident and the resultant death of deceased Nagaraju in the road traffic accident are not in dispute. It is stated that the deceased was aged about 40 years. The claimants are none other than the wife, two minor children and Respondents 3 and 4/parents of deceased. Further, it is not disputed that, the deceased was working as ''First Division Surveyor'' in the Revenue Department, drawing salary of Rs. 10,987/- per month as per Ex. P12. Out of the said income, the admissible deductions are professional tax and income tax, as per the law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, . Therefore, we accept the income of the deceased at Rs. 10,987/- per month. To the said sum, since the deceased was aged about 40 years and in a secured job, we add 30% towards future prospects. Accordingly, if 30% (i.e. Rs. 3,296/-) is added, the net income comes to Rs. 14,283/- per month. Out of the said income, if a sum of Rs. 150/- towards professional tax is deducted, the income comes to Rs. 14,133/-, which works out to Rs. 1,69,596/- per annum. Out of this, for the relevant assessment year, there is exemption of income tax upto a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- and the remaining sum of Rs. 59,596/- is taxable at the rate of 10%. Accordingly, if a sum of Rs. 5,959/- towards income tax from the income of Rs. 1,69,596/- is deducted, the net annual income would be Rs. 1,63,637/-. The claimants are three in number and Respondents 3 and 4 are parents of deceased and thus they are also treated as claimants for the purpose of awarding compensation and in all there are five claimants. Therefore, 1/4th is to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased. Accordingly, if 1/4th (i.e. Rs. 40,909/-) is deducted from Rs. 1,63,637/- towards his personal expenses, the net income would be Rs. 1,22,728/- per annum. As the deceased was aged about 40 years, the proper multiplier applicable is ''15'' as per the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court Sana Verma''s case (supra) as rightly adopted by Tribunal. Thus, the compensation towards loss of dependency would work out to Rs. 18,40,920/- (i.e. Rs. 1,22,728/- x ''15'') as against Rs. 17,54,550/- awarded by Tribunal.
Further, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards conventional heads, such as loss of consortium, loss of estate, loss of love and affection and transportation and funeral expenses. The same is a bit on the higher side. Therefore, we award a sum of Rs. 45,000/- towards the conventional heads, as per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma''s case (supra) as against Rs. 50,000/- awarded by Tribunal.
Further, the Tribunal is justified in awarding a sum of Rs. 2,75,000/- towards medical expenses, including conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges since the deceased survived for a period of nearly 18 days before succumbing to the grievous injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. Therefore, interference in the same is not called for and the same is accepted.
Thus, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 21,60,920/- with interest at 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization as against Rs. 20,79,550/- with 6% awarded by Tribunal. There would be enhancement of compensation by a sum of Rs. 81,370/-.
Further, so far as the submission of the learned counsel appearing for claimants that the apportionment of compensation in favour of the Respondent No. 4 - the father of the deceased at Rs. 3,00,000/- is on the higher side is concerned, it emerges that the claimants are the wife, aged about only 33 years, minor children aged about 11 years and 9 years as on the date of accident. All of them are entirely dependent on the income of the deceased and because of the untimely and unnatural death of the deceased Nagaraju in the road traffic accident, they have suffered financially and socially. But, at the same, it should be noted that the Respondents 3 and 4 who are the parents of the deceased were aged about 65 years and 71 years as on the date of accident and because of the untimely death of their son Nagaraju, they are also deprived of his financial support. Therefore, we find some substance in the submission of the learned counsel appearing for claimants that the compensation apportioned in favour of the Respondent No. 4 - father of deceased is on the higher side. Accordingly, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby modify the apportionment ordered only in favour of Respondent 4 -father of deceased by awarding a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- instead of Rs. 3,00,000/-. The difference of Rs. 1,00,000/- is to be deposited in any nationalized/scheduled Bank, in the names of appellant Nos. 2 and 3 in equal proportion to meet the ends of justice and to safeguard the interest of both the parties.
In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the appeal filed by claimants is allowed in part.
The impugned judgment and award dated 3rd March 2011, passed in MVC No. 641/2009 by the XIII Additional Small Causes Judge, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore (SCCH-15), is hereby modified, awarding compensation of a sum of Rs. 1,60,920/- with interest at 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization as against Rs. 20,79,550/- with 6% awarded by Tribunal. There would be enhancement of compensation by a sum of Rs. 81,370/-.
The Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 81,370/- with interest @ 6% per annum, within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment;
The apportionment ordered only in favour of Respondent No. 4 - father of deceased at Rs. 3,00,000/- is hereby modified from a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- to a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- and the difference amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- shall be deposited in the names of claimants 2 and 3/appellants 2 and 3/minor children of deceased, at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- each, till they attain the age of 30 years, with liberty reserved to the claimant No. 1- wife of deceased to receive the interest periodically till they attain the age of 21 years, and from 22 to 30 years, the claimants 2 and 3 are entitled to withdraw their respective interest;
The apportionment of compensation ordered in favour of others remains unaltered;
Immediately on deposit of the enhanced amount of Rs. 81,370/- with interest by the Insurer, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with proportionate interest shall be deposited in the name of the claimant No. 1 - wife of deceased, in any nationalized/Scheduled Bank, for a period often years, renewable for another ten years, with liberty reserved to her to withdraw the interest periodically;
Remaining sum of Rs. 31,370/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the claimant No. 1 - wife of deceased, immediately.
Office to draw award, accordingly.