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. 1005/2007 dated 12.05.2010 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bellary (for short ''the Tribunal'') filed this appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation. The claimant No. 1 is the wife, claimant Nos. 2 and 3 are the minor children and claimant No. 4 is the mother of the deceased. The case of the claimants is that, on 10.05.2007, while the deceased Rajashekara Gouda was proceeding in his Motor cycle bearing registration No. KA-34/K-2063 at about 4-00 p.m., the Tractor & Trailer bearing registration No. KA-35/9364 and KA-34/T-5940 driven by the first respondent in a high speed came in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle, due to the accident, Rajashekara Gouda sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident he was shifted to VIMS Hospital at Bellary, where he was declared dead. In the claim petition, it was contended that the deceased was an agriculturist. He owned 5 acres of land. At the time of accident, he was aged about 32 years. He was the sole bread earner of the family and sought for compensation of Rs. 50,00,000/-.
The respondents entered appearance. First respondent filed objections denying the rash and negligent driving of the Tractor and Trailer. The second respondent, who is the owner of the Tractor and Trailer contended that the Tractor and Trailer is covered by the insurance. Hence the insurer has to compensate the claimant and sought for dismissal of the appeal as against the second respondent. The third respondent-owner of the offending vehicle was served with notice, but he remained unrepresented.
The fourth respondent-Insurer filed the written statement denying the entire averments made in the claim petition and also contended that the driver of the Tractor and Trailer did not possess the valid driving license. Further, the policy issued was in respect of the Farmer. Package policy, however, owner of the Tractor and Trailer violated the policy conditions. Hence, the entire liability has to be fastened on the owner of the offending vehicle and sought for dismissal of the claim petition as against the Insurer.
The Tribunal on appreciating the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties and also taking into consideration the copy of the complaint, FIR, Spot Mahazar, IMV report and charge sheet held that due to the rash and negligent driving of the Tractor and Trailer bearing registration No. KA-35/9364 and KA-34/T-5940 by its driver, the accident has occurred. Further the driver of the Tractor and Trailer was having the valid driving license as per Ex. P7, hence the claimants are entitled for compensation from the 4th respondent. With regard to the quantum of compensation is concerned, the claimants have contended that the deceased was getting monthly income of Rs. 50,000/- from the agriculture and business. However, no corroborative documents had been produced to prove the same. The Tribunal taking into consideration, the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- p.m., deducting 1/4 towards his personal expenditure and applying multiplier of 16 awarded Rs. 4,32,000/- towards loss of dependency and Rs. 45,000/- towards conventional head. In all, the tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 4,77,000/-.with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. The claimants being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal have filed this appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation.
Sri. K. Anandkumar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants contended that judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, is contrary to law and evidence on record and that the compensation awarded towards of loss of dependency is also on the lower side and sought for enhancement of the compensation.
On the other hand, Smt. Aruna Deshpande, learned Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent argued in support of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and also contended that taking into consideration the entire documents produced by the parties, the Tribunal has awarded just and fair compensation and the same is not liable to be interfered with by this court. Hence, sought for dismissal of the appeal.
I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment and award and the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties. The records clearly disclose that due to the rash and negligent driving of the Tractor and Trailer by the first respondent, husband of the first appellant, father of appellants 2 and 3 and son of the 4th appellant died on 10.05.2007. At the time of accident, he was aged about 32 years. Even though in the claim petition it was contended that the deceased owned 5 acres of land and getting income of Rs. 50,000/- p.m., the Tribunal has taken income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- p.m. and awarded compensation. On perusal of the records, it is seen that though the claimants claim that the deceased was cultivating 5 acres of land, the revenue records stand in the name of the father of the deceased. The father of the deceased is still alive. The fact remains that, though the father of deceased owns the land and the deceased was cultivating the said land, the income taken by the Tribunal at Rs. 3,000/- p.m. is on the lower side. The Tribunal has not awarded future prospects. In view of the judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Others, , the claimants are entitled for future prospects of 30% of the income. Hence, taking into consideration the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,000/- p.m., adding 30% of the income towards future prospects, deducting 1/4 towards his personal expenditure and applying multiplier of 16, the claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs. 7,48,800/- towards loss of dependency. Sum of Rs. 45,000/- towards conventional head. In all the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs. 7,93,800/- as against Rs. 4,77,000/- compensation awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
The Appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 12.05.2010 made in MVC No. 1005/2007 passed by the Tribunal is modified. The claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 7,93,800/- as against Rs. 4,77,000/- compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs. 3,16,800/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.
Out of the enhanced compensation amount of Rs. 3,16,800/-, Rs. 1,00,000/- each shall be deposited in the name of the second and third appellants in any Nationalized Bank for a period of ten years, renewable after five years. The: first appellant is entitled to withdraw the accrued interest. A sum of Rs. 50,000/- shall be deposited in the Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized Bank the name of the 4th appellant for a period of 5 years and she is entitled to withdraw the periodical interest.
The remaining amount with accrued interest shall be released in the name of the first respondent.
The second respondent-Insurer is directed to release the enhanced compensation amount within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.