AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the claimants is directed against the judgment and award dated 13th January 2012, passed in MVC No. 46/2011, by the VIII Additional Judge, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-V, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore City, (for short, ''Tribunal'') for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 3,25,000/- awarded in favour of the claimants as against their claim for Rs. 21,10,000/-, is inadequate. The facts in brief are that, the claimants are the father, mother and brother of deceased Laxmisha D.R. They filed the claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that, at about 08:30 P.M., on 10-11-2010, when the deceased was proceeding on a moped bearing Registration No. KA-01/EK-3925 on 14th Main Road towards silk board, Madiwala PS limits, near HSR Layout out, near Millige junction, a Mini Bus bearing Registration No. KA-42/4319 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the rider of moped, due to impact, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and immediately he was taken to Hospital, but in spite of providing best treatment, he could not be saved and he succumbed to the injuries.
It is the case of the appellants that, the deceased was aged about 18 years and was unmarried. He had completed his Vocational course in Sericulture and was working as Operation Executive at M/s. Myntra HSR Layout, Bangalore, drawing salary of a sum of Rs. 6,000/- per month and was hale and healthy prior to the accident. On account of the untimely death of the deceased Laxmisha D.R., the claimants/appellants have lost the love and affection, social and moral support apart from financial security and therefore, they have to be compensated reasonably.
On account of the death of the deceased, the appellants filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, seeking compensation against the respondents. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 13th January, 2012. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, awarding a sum of Rs. 3,25,000/- under different heads, with 6% interest per annum, from the date of petition till the date of payment. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants are in appeal before this Court, seeking enhancement of compensation.
We have gone through the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal and heard learned counsel appearing for appellants and learned counsel appearing for first Respondent/Insurer, for quite some time.
The submission of the learned counsel appearing for appellant, at the outset is that, the Tribunal grossly erred in assessing the notional income of the deceased at only Rs. 3,000/- per month in spite of the oral evidence of P.W. 1, the mother of the deceased that the deceased had completed Vocational course in Sericulture and working as Operation Executive at M/s. Myntra HSR layout, getting income of Rs. 6,000/- per month. The Tribunal disbelieved the same on the ground that the said oral evidence is not supported by any documentary evidence. Mere non production of documentary evidence cannot disentitle the legitimate entitlement of reasonable compensation by the claimants on account of the death of the deceased in the road traffic accident. Therefore, she submitted that reasonable income may be re-assessed considering the age, avocation and the year of accident and reasonable compensation be awarded towards loss of dependency, after deducting 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased and by adopting the multiplier of ''15'', considering the age of the younger parent, mother, and also under conventional heads, by modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal.
As against this, learned counsel appearing for first respondent-Insurer sought to justify the impugned judgment and award stating that the same is passed after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file and the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- having regard to his age, avocation and the year of accident and hence, interference in the same is uncalled for.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, and after careful perusal of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the only point that arise for our consideration in this appeal is,
Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal is just and reasonable?
The undisputed facts of the case are, the occurrence of accident and the resultant death of the deceased Lakshmisha D.R. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was aged about 18 years and working as Operation Executive with M/s. Myntra HSR Layout, Bangalore But, to substantiate the stand of the appellants that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 6,000/- per month, the appellants have not produced any document nor examined the employer. But, non production of documentary evidence cannot deprive the legitimate entitlement of compensation by the claimants towards loss of dependency. The accident is of the year 2010. Therefore, having regard to the age, avocation and also the year of accident coupled with the oral evidence of P.W. 1, we re-assess the income of the deceased at Rs. 5,000/- per month, to meet the ends of justice. Since the deceased was a bachelor, we deduct 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased. Accordingly, If 50% (i.e. Rs. 2,500/-) is deducted from Rs. 5,000/- towards his personal expenses, the net income would be Rs. 2,500/- per month. The deceased was aged about 18 years. But, as per the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, , the age of younger parent of the deceased should be taken into consideration for adopting the multiplier, for calculating loss of dependency. The mother of the deceased is stated to be aged about 35 years. But, on the basis of the documentary evidence, the Tribunal has assessed the age of the mother of deceased between 36 to 40 years as on the date of accident. The same is just and proper and we accept the same. Accordingly, for the said age group, the proper multiplier applicable is ''15'' as rightly adopted by Tribunal. Thus, the compensation towards loss of dependency would work out to Rs. 4,50,000/- (i.e. Rs. 2,500/- x 12 x ''15'') as against Rs. 2,70,000/- awarded by Tribunal.
Further, the Tribunal has erred in awarding only a sum of Rs. 40,000/- towards conventional heads. The same is on the lower side. As per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma''s case (supra), we award a sum of Rs. 45,000/- towards conventional heads, such as loss of estate, loss of love and affection and transportation and funeral expenses as against Rs. 40,000/- awarded by Tribunal.
Further, it can be seen that the deceased survived for one day and was treated at various hospitals and succumbed to the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident on the next day. On the basis of the medical bills and prescriptions, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards medical and other incidental expenses. The same is just and proper and does not call for interference.
Thus the total compensation works out to Rs. 5,10,000/- as against Rs. 3,25,000/- awarded by Tribunal.
In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the appeal filed by appellant is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 13th January 2012, passed in MVC No. 46/2011, by the VIII Additional Judge, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-V, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore City, is hereby modified, awarding a sum of Rs. 5,10,000/- as against Rs. 3,25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at 8% per annum on the enhanced sum, from the date of petition till the date of realization. Thus, there would be enhancement of compensation by a sum of Rs. 1,85,000/- with 8% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.
The first respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,85,000/-, with interest thereon at 8% per annum, within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment.
Immediately on such deposit by the Insurance Company, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- each with proportionate interest shall be invested in the names of appellant Nos. 1 and 2, in Fixed Deposit, in any scheduled/Nationalized Bank, for a period of ten years, renewable by another ten-years, with liberty reserved to them to withdraw their respective periodical interest.
Remaining sum of Rs. 85,000/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of appellant Nos. 1 and 2, in equal proportion, immediately.
Office to draw award, accordingly.