AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ashok B. Hinchigeri
This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 13.11.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Additional Judge, Bangalore, in MVC No. 2893/2008. For the death of one Laxman in the road traffic accident in question, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 3,56,800/- to his widow and son. Its break-up is as follows:
(i) Loss of dependency:
Rs. 3,16,800/-
(ii) Loss of estate:
Rs. 10,000/-
(iii) Loss of consortium:
Rs. 10,000/-
(iv) Loss of love & affection:
Rs. 10,000/-
(v) Funeral & obsequies:
Rs. 10,000/-
Total:
Rs. 3,56,800/-
My perusal of the appeal memorandum shows that the appellant''s grievance is only over the employment of the wrong multiplier.
The learned counsel for the respondent No 2, Sri Srinivas submits that the deceased''s age is taken as 53 years based on the evidence of the 1st appellant that she was aged 47 years at the time of the accident and that her husband is elder to her by six years. Sri Srinivas would therefore submits that the Tribunal is justified in taking the age of the deceased as 53 yeas and employing the multiplier ''11''.
The 1st appellant who has given evidence is an unlettered woman. There is every likelihood that she has stated her age approximately or incorrectly. The ends of justice require that the age of the deceased has to be ascertained from the documents which have come into existence at an undisputed point of time. In the ration card issued on 19.05.2003, the deceased''s age is shown as 45 years. Going by the age shown in the ration card, it is safe to hold that he would be around 50 years of age in 2008. In the election identity card, his age is shown as 38 years as on 01.01.1995. In 2008, he would be 51 years. In the mahazar at Ex.P8, the deceased''s age is shown as 50 years. In the postmortem report at Ex.P9 also, his age is shown as 50 years. Based on these documents, I deem it safe to infer and hold that his age was 50 years at the time of the accident in 2008. The relevant multiplier for the age group 46-50 is ''13''. Taking the deceased''s income as Rs. 3,600/- per month, deducting Rs. 1,200/- towards his personal expenses, as has been shown by the Tribunal and employing the multiplier ''13'', the amount awardable towards the loss of dependency are reworked as follows:
Rs. 2,400 x 12 x 13 = Rs. 3,74,400/-
In all other respects, the award passed by the Tribunal remains unaltered. Now, the modified award stands as follows:
(i) Loss of dependency:
Rs. 3,74,400/-
(ii) Loss of estate:
Rs. 10,000/-
(iii) Loss of consortium:
Rs. 10,000/-
(iv) Loss of love & affection:
Rs. 10,000/-
(v) Funeral & obsequies:
Rs. 10,000/-
Total:
Rs. 4,14,400/-
The amounts are rounded off to Rs. 4,15,000/-.
It is made clear that the rate of interest at 9% p.a. awarded by the Tribunal remains undisturbed as far as the amounts ( Rs. 3,56,800/-) awarded by it are concerned. However, the amount enhanced herein shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of institution of the claim petition till the date of payment.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.