AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil, J.—Though this matter is posted in the admission list, it is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for both the parties.
This appeal by the claimants is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 20.08.2010 passed in MVC No. 1747/2010 on the file of the V Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Mysore, (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal'' for short) for enhancement of compensation.
The Tribunal by its judgment and award has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,56,400/- under different heads with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, as against the claim of the appellants on account of the death of the deceased in the road traffic accident.
In brief, the facts of the case are:
The 1st appellant is the wife and the 2nd, 3rd and 4th appellants are the children of the deceased-Malemadaiah and they have filed a claim petition before the Tribunal u/s 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation of Rs. 27,00,000/- against the respondents, on account of the death of the deceased in the road traffic accident, which occurred on 21.05.2006 at about 10.00 a.m. when the deceased was returning from Coimbatore to Mysore in a Mahindra Van bearing No. KA-09/A-2629 near Shanbhag on Puttur Bridge. At that time, a SRT Bus bearing No. TN-36/Z-9355 dashed against the said Mahindra Van. It is contended that, the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving by the drivers of both the vehicles. Due to the impact, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and was shifted to Government Hospital at Sathyamangala and from there to the hospital at Coimbatore and again from there he was shifted to K.R. Hospital, Mysore. The deceased was treated as inpatient for about 25 days, but inspite of best efforts by the doctors he could not be saved and succumbed to the injuries on 16.06.2006. It the case of the appellants that, they have spent reasonable amount towards medical treatment and conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges. Further, it is contended that the deceased was aged about 43 years and hale and healthy as on the date of accident and being a vegetable vendor he was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month and looking after the welfare of the appellants. He was the only earning member in the family. Due to his untimely death, the wife has lost her life partner and the children have lost love and affection, guidance, inspiration and security in life also it has affected social, moral and economic condition of the family. Therefore, they were constrained to file a claim petition against the respondents claiming compensation of Rs. 27,00,000/-. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and other material available on file, has allowed the claim petition in part and awarded the compensation of Rs. 5,56,400/- under different heads with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of deposit, issuing direction to the 1st and 4th respondents to deposit 50% of the compensation amount each with proportionate interest. Not being satisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the appellants have presented this appeal, for modification of the same.
The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants at the outset is that, the Tribunal has erred in assessing income of the deceased at only Rs. 4,000/- per month, since, by profession the deceased was a vegetable vendor and the entire family was dependent on the income of the deceased. Due to the accidental injuries the deceased was treated as inpatient in the hospital for about 25 days and the appellants have spent reasonable amount towards medical expenses, conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges. Therefore, he submits to re-assess the income and award reasonable compensation towards loss of dependency, conventional heads and also towards medical expenses and conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges. Further, he submitted that the Tribunal ought to have issued direction to the 2nd respondent-National Insurance Co. Ltd., to indemnify the 50% of award amount on behalf of 1st respondent-owner of the Mahindra Van and recover the same from the 1st respondent, in accordance with law. Therefore, he submits to modify the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
As against this, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd and 4th respondents, inter-alia, contended and substantiated that, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper. It is passed after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record. Therefore interference by this Court is not called for.
1st and 3rd respondents are served and unrepresented.
After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and on perusal of the material available on record, including the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the only point that arises for consideration is:
Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?
It is not in dispute that the deceased died in the road traffic accident. Claimants are none other than the wife and three children of the deceased and out of them, 3rd and 4th appellants were minor at the time of accident. Further, it is not in dispute that, the deceased was aged about 43 years at the time of accident, hale and healthy and by profession he being a vegetable vendor looking after the welfare of the appellants. The entire family was dependent on the income of the deceased. Inspite of best efforts by the doctors the deceased could not be saved and succumbed to the injuries on 16.06.2006. Having regard to the age, avocation and year of accident, we can safely re-assess the income of the deceased at Rs. 5,000/- per month to meet the ends of justice instead of Rs. 4,000/- assessed by the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased and applied the multiplier of ''14'' to the age of deceased and the same is accepted. Accordingly, out of Rs. 5,000/- if, 1/4th is deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, it comes to Rs. 3,750/-. Accordingly, the appellants are entitled towards loss of dependency at Rs. 6,30,000/- (Rs. 3,750 x 12 x 14).
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it fit to award Rs. 50,000/-towards loss of consortium to the 1st appellant and Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of love and affection at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- to each one of the appellants. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs. 10,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 22,400/- towards medical expenses and conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges. The same is just and proper and does not call for interference. In all, the appellants are entitled for Rs. 7,62,400/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till realization as against Rs. 5,56,400/- awarded by the Tribunal. There will be an enhancement of Rs. 2,06,000/- with 6% interest.
Regarding submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that, the Tribunal is not justified in issuing direction to the 1st respondent-owner of Mahindra Van to indemnify 50% of award amount instead of directing the 2nd respondent-National Insurance Co. Ltd., is concerned, the said submission cannot be accepted for the reason that the Tribunal after recording the finding of fact, has held that, the 1st respondent is liable to indemnify the 50% of award amount. The said reasoning is well founded and well reasoned and we do not find any good grounds to interfere with the same. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal dated 20.08.2010 in MVC No. 1747/2010 is hereby modified.
The 1st and 4th respondents are directed to deposit 50% of enhanced compensation each, 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 of Rs. 2,06,000/-, Rs. 1,50,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank, in the name of the 1st appellant for a period of ten years and renewable for another ten years, with liberty to her to withdraw the periodical interest accrued on it.
The remaining Rs. 56,000/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the 1st appellant, immediately, on deposit by the 1st and 4th respondents.
Draw the award, accordingly.