AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the claimants is arising out of the impugned judgment and award dated 29.4.2010 passed in MVC No. 11/2008 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-V and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mysore (hereinafter referred to as ''Tribunal'' for short). By its judgment and award, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 19,17,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till it''s realization as against the claim made by the appellants, on account of the death of Kamaraj in the road traffic accident. The appellants contending that the compensation awarded is inadequate and requires enhancement, have filed the present appeal.
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant No. 1 is the wife, appellant No. 2 is the minor daughter and appellant Nos. 3 and 4 are the parents of the deceased Kamaraj. The appellants filed the claim petition u/s 166 of the MV Act claiming compensation against the insurer and owner of the offending vehicle contending that the deceased was aged about 31 years, hale and healthy at the time of the accident. He was working as a Supervisor at Chamundi Textiles (Silk Mills) Limited drawing salary of Rs. 14,000/- per month. He was the only earning member in the family. On account of untimely death of the deceased, appellant No. 1 has lost her life partner, appellant Nos. 2 to 4 have lost love and affection of the deceased. The untimely death of the deceased has affected social and economic condition of the family. The deceased used to spend entire income to the family. Taking all these aspects into consideration, the appellants filed the claim petition contending that due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Toyota Qualis Car bearing No. KA-21-MA-100, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to injuries.
The Tribunal after hearing both sides and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, has allowed the said claim petition in part and awarded a sum Rs. 19,17,000/- as compensation under different heads with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization and directed the insurance company to indemnify the award amount. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants felt necessitated to file the present appeal for enhancement of compensation.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that, the Tribunal has not awarded reasonable compensation towards less of dependency. It has awarded compensation of Rs. 15,91,104/- towards loss of dependency, which is on the lower side. He submitted that the deceased was aged about 31 years at the time of accident and was working as a Supervisor at Chamundi Textiles (Silk Mills) Ltd., drawing salary of Rs. 14,000/- per month. He was the only earning member in the family looking after his wife, minor daughter, parents and his brother. Further, relying on the judgment reported in Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Others, , he submits that, while calculating the income of the deceased the future prospects at 30% may be added to the income for calculating loss of dependency and re-determine the compensation by awarding reasonable compensation, modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-insurance company, inter alia, contended and substantiated that, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record and it does not call for interference. However, he has not disputed the decision cited by the learned Counsel for the appellants and submitted that the same may be considered in accordance with law.
After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and on perusal of the materials available on record, including the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the only point that arise for consideration is:
Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?
The date of accident, age of the deceased and that, he was working as a Supervisor at Chamundi Textiles (Silk Mills) Limited, Mysore, are not in dispute. It is stated that he was the only earning member in the family. Taking into consideration the fact that the deceased has left his wife, minor daughter and parents of the deceased, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 15,91,104/- towards loss of dependency. The 5th claimant being the brother of the deceased is major and hence, he has not been made a party to this appeal. The Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 11,050/- per month. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellants in the light of the decision of the apex court in Santosh Devi''s, referred supra, 30% towards future prospects is to be added to the income of the deceased, ''which comes to Rs. 3,315/-. Accordingly, the gross income comes to Rs. 1,72,380/- per annum. Learned Counsel for both sides fairly submit that 10% of the income of the deceased be deducted towards income tax. Accordingly, 10% on Rs. 1,72,380/- comes to Rs. 17,238/- (Rs. 1,72,380 x 10/100). If the said amount is deducted from the Rs. 1,72,380/-, the remaining income comes to Rs. 1,55,142/-. If Rs. 2,400/- is deducted towards professional tax, the net income comes to Rs. 1,52,742/-. The appellants are four in number and if 1/4th of Rs. 1,52,742/- i.e., Rs. 38,185/- is deducted towards personal expenses of deceased, the net income comes to Rs. 1,14,557/-. The deceased was aged 31 years as the time of accident. The proper multiplier applicable is 16. Thus, the compensation towards loss of dependency comes to Rs. 18,32,912/- as against Rs. 15,91,104/- awarded by Tribunal. The Tribunal is justified in awarding Rs. 50,000/- towards conventional head, Rs. 2,56,506/- towards medical expenses Rs. 17,907/-, towards conveyance of dead body and Rs. 1,600/- towards Attendant charges and therefore, interference is not called for. The appellants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 18,32,912/- towards loss of dependency as against Rs. 15,91,104. In all, the appellants are entitled to total compensation of Rs. 21,58,925/- as against Rs. 19,17,000/-. There would be enhancement of compensation by Rs. 2,41,925/-. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 29.4.2010 passed in MVC No. 11/2008 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-V and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mysore, is hereby modified, awarding additional compensation of Rs. 2,41,925/- with 6% interest per annum.
The 2nd respondent-insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 4,98,314/- (Rs. 5,48,314/-) with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realisation, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Out of the enhanced compensation, Rs. 1,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank, in the name of appellant No. 2 till she attains the age of 30 years. Appellant No. 1 is entitled to withdraw the interest accrued on it till appellant No. 2 attains the age of 21 years for her welfare. Thereafter, from 22-30 years, appellant No. 2 is entitled to withdraw the interest.
Rs. 1,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank, in the name of appellant No. 1 for a period of ten years and renewable for another five years, with liberty to her to withdraw the interest accrued on it, periodically.
The remaining Rs. 41,925/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of appellant Nos. 1, 3 and 4 in equal proportion immediately, on deposit by the Insurer.
Draw the award, accordingly.