AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.N. Satyanarayana
This appeal and cross objection arising out of MVC No.537/2006 on the file of the MACT. Shimoga, have come up today for admission. With the consent of the counsel appearing for both the parties, the same are taken up for final disposal.
The brief facts leading to this appeal are as under:-
Appellant Nos.1 and 2 are respectively second and third respondents before the Tribunal, whereas, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein were the claimants The fact that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are parents, respondent Nos.3 and 4 are respectively brother and sister of deceased M.G. Praveen is not in dispute. It is further not in dispute that M.G. Praveen died in an accident which took place on 7.5.2006 at about 10.00 p.m., while deceased Praveen was riding his motor cycle bearing No.KA-14-S-3191 at 66th Cross, 17th Main, 5th Block, Rajajinagar. Bangalore. It is also not in dispute that the vehicle belonging to the first appellant herein and insured with second appellant viz., Tata Indica car bearing No.KA-01-MB-5399 was involved in the said accident, which resulted in the death of Praveen and the owner of the said motor bike claimed compensation for damage to his vehicle by filing claim petition in MVC No.526/2006.
When the claim petition filed seeking compensation for the death of Praveen and also the petition filed by the owner of the motor vehicle seeking compensation for damage to his vehicle came up before the Tribunal, it took both the claim petitions together and disposed of the same by common Judgment and award dated 20th December 2008. While allowing the claim petition filed by the parents, brother and sister of deceased Praveen, the Tribunal proceeded to hold that the accident resulting in the death of Praveen is due to rash and negligent driving of Tata Indica car belonging to the first appellant insured with second appellant. In the said accident, the claimants viz., respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein are entitled to compensation in a sum of Rs. 5,34,000/-. It is also seen that the Tribunal to arrive at the aforesaid compensation, has calculated the loss of dependency to claimants in a sum of Rs. 5,04,000/-. taking the notional income of deceased Praveen at Rs. 6,000/- p.m. and taking the average age of parents of deceased Praveen at ''40'' years and deducting 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased and under other conventional heads a sum of Rs. 30.000/- is awarded.
The owner and also insurer of Tata Indica car being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation have come up in this appeal contending that the notional income taken at Rs. 6,000/- p.m. for a student aged about 20 years is on the higher side and the same is required to be reduced and also on the ground that the 3rd and 4th respondents being the brother and sister arc-dependent on the deceased, hence, they are not entitled for compensation and also on the ground that when the eldest son of the second respondent being 21 years, age of his mother-second respondent cannot be 35 years on facts, therefore, it is alleged that the age of the mother of the deceased should have been at least 39 years or 40 years. As the second respondent, her son is aged about 21 years, if she were to be married at the age of 18 years and begetting a child at 19 years, she would be aged 40 years and the same would be appropriate for applying the multiplier. However, in this appeal, the driver of the Tata Indica ear being at fault in causing the accident is not in dispute and also the liability to pay the compensation for having issued the policy covering the liability of the said vehicle is not in dispute by the first and second appellant herein.
In the mean-while, there is cross objection filed by the parents, brother and sister of deceased Praveen who are respectively petitioner Nos.1 to 4 before the Tribunal, on the ground that notional income of the deceased taken at Rs. 6,000/- is on the lower side and the same is required to be increased and also the decision of the Tribunal taking average age of the parents at ''40'' years and applying multiplier of 14'' is on the lower side and the same is required to be modified taking the age of the second respondent- mother of the deceased, who was aged 35 years at the time of accident and relevant multiplier applicable is "15" in terms of the judgment of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, by the Apex Court, compensation has to be calculated accordingly.
Heard the learned counsel for the cross objector.
Admittedly, the relationship of the claimants i.e., respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein to that of deceased M.G, Praveen is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the first appellant owner of Tata India ear. which caused the accident and said Tata Indica car being insured with the second appellant is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of Tata Indica ear which resulted in the death of Praveen, who was the rider of the motor cycle at relevant point of time and the only point that is in dispute is what was the age of the mother of the deceased at the time of his death and whether the brother and sister of deceased can joint their parents to seek compensation for the death of their brother -Praveen and also whether the compensation arrived at taking the notional income of the deceased at Rs. 6.000/- p.m. was just and proper or does it require to be modified, as prayed by the appellants to decrease the same and as prayed for by the respondent, claimants to revise the same upwards.
After going through the finding of the Trial Court and relevant grounds of appeal, it is clearly seen that deceased Praveen was a student at the time of the accident and he was aged about 18 years. Admittedly, the third claimant is elder brother aged 21 years at the time of the accident. Therefore, the age of the second claimant mother shown in the cause-title of the judgment that she is aged 35 years cannot be believed. Assuming for a movement that normal age of marriage being 18 years and if she were to get. married at 18 years and begetting her first child in her 19th year, the age of her first son being 21 years gives an indication that at the time of filing the claim, she should be at least 40 years. If the principle of Sarla Verma''s case is applied to the case on hand, for a person aged between 38-42 years, the relevant multiplier to be applied is "14". In that view of the matter even though the reasoning given by the Tribunal cannot be accepted, the multiplier at "14" appears to be just and proper. Therefore, it does not call for disturbing the said finding as pleaded by the claimant cross objectors.
Now'' coming to the notional income of the deceased, admittedly, deceased Praveen was a student said to have been studying in B.Com and he was aged 20 years. Normally in cases where the income of the deceased is not being capable of being assessed in any manner, the procedure that the Courts adopt is to take a person of that age with qualification what he was earning and in the instant case, the Tribunal while assessing the notional income has taken into consideration that a coolie would he earning Rs. 100/- per day, a B.com student aged about 20 years can be double than that. However, this Court is not agreeable to accept that, line of reasoning. In any event, in the absence of income, the finding arrived at by the Tribunal taking the notional income of the deceased at Rs. 200/- per day is excessive and unreasonable and the same is required to be taken at Rs. 4,500/- p.m., which itself is on the higher side, in the absence of acceptable proof of ability to earn that income. So far as the contention urged by the appellant insurance company and owner of the vehicle that 3rd and 4th claimants respectively respondent Nos.3 and 4 who are the brother and sister of deceased Praveen could not have joined as necessary parties for compensation, appears to be just and proper. In the facts & circumstances, when the father is gainfully employed and he was not only taking care of the deceased but also the family members, awarding compensation to them is uncalled for.
In the result, the following order is made:-
a. Appeal filed by the insurance company Is allowed-in-part.
b. MFA. Crob. No. 139/09 filed by the claimants is dismissed.
The compensation awarded is revised taking the notional income of the deceased at Rs. 4,500/- p.m., 50% of the same being dependency on his parents i.e., claimant Nos. 1 and 2 with that the compensation that they would be entitled to is Rs. 3,78,000/-(2,250/- x 12 x 14 = Rs. 3,78.000/- + the compensation awarded under conventional heads to an extent of Rs. 30.000/-. The claimant Nos.1 and 2 would be entitled to total compensation of Rs. 4,08,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of deposit of the entire amount before the Tribunal. Out of the compensation awarded, claimant Nos.1 and 2 i.e., respondent Nos.1 and 2 being the parents are entitled to 50% each i.e., Rs.2,04,000/- each. Out of the same, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- each is ordered to be deposited in any Nationalised Bank initially for a period of five years with a renewable clause for another five years and they would be entitled to receive interest periodically. So far as the balance amount of Rs. 4,000/- each and also 50% of the interest accumulated thereon shall be released in their favour as and when the entire amount is deposited.
In the mean-while, Registry is directed to transfer the amount in deposit to the Tribunal.