AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. Sreenivase Gowda, J.—This appeal is by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Heard, the appeal is admitted and with the consent of learned counsel appearing for parties, it is taken up for final disposal.
For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Tribunal.
As there is no dispute regarding death of the deceased in a road traffic accident occurred on 15.8.2007 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry bearing registration No. KA-16-A-2978 by its driver and liability of the insurer of the offending vehicle, the only point that arises for my consideration in the appeal is:
Whether quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for enhancement?
After hearing the learned counsel appearing for parties and perusing the judgment and award of the Tribunal, I am of the view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not just and reasonable, it is on the lower side and hence it is required to be enhanced.
The deceased was aged about 35 years at the time of his death in the accident as per PM report Ex. P-8. Two wives, 5 minor children and parents of the deceased filed a claim petition seeking compensation u/s 166 of MV Act. The claimants in support of their contention that deceased by working as Commission Agent and doing agriculture was earning a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month except examining the wife of the deceased as PW-1, they have not produced any documents establishing the income of the deceased. In the absence of proof of income, considering his age as 35 years, year of accident as 2008 and his avocation as coolie and the fact that he was maintaining a large family, his income can be assessed at Rs. 5,500/- per month as against Rs. 4,500/- per month assessed by the Tribunal. There are 7 dependent claimants and therefore, 1/5th of his income is to be deducted towards his personal expenses and remaining 4/5th of his income is to be taken as his contribution to family. The multiplier of ''16'' has to be applied based on his age group. Therefore, the ''loss of dependency'' works out to Rs. 8,44,800/- (5500 x 4/5 x 16 x 12) and it is awarded as against Rs. 6,91,200/- awarded by the Tribunal.
Further, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- each is awarded towards ''loss of consortium'' of two wives, Rs. 10,000/- each is awarded towards ''loss of love and affection'' of 5 children and Rs. 10,000/- is awarded towards ''transportation of dead body and funeral expenses'' as against Rs. 55,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
Thus, the claimants are entitled for the following compensation:-
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed-in-part. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent stated herein above. The claimants are entitled for an additional compensation of Rs. 2,08,600/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation.
The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the additional compensation amount together with interest within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. From which, Rs. 20,000/- each with proportionate interest is ordered to be invested in fixed deposit in the names of claimant Nos. 1 to 8 in any Nationalised Bank/Scheduled Bank/Post Office for a period of 3 years in respect of claimant Nos. 1, 7 and 9 and till the age of attaining majority in the case of claimant Nos. 2 to 5 and 7 and with a right of option to withdraw interest periodically. Further, the claimant Nos. 1 and 6 are also permitted to withdraw interest periodically from their deposit as well as from the deposit their minor children. Remaining amount with proportionate interest is ordered to be released in favour of the claimant Nos. 1 and 6 in equal proportion. The Tribunal while releasing the amount is also directed to issue the fixed deposit slips, so as to enable the claimants to withdraw the deposit amount on its maturity without approaching the Tribunal once again and the Bank is directed to release the fixed deposit amount without insisting for any further order from the Tribunal.
No order as to costs.