AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the claimants is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 4.12.2010 passed in MVC No. 8203/2008 on the file of the IV Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member MACT, Bangalore. The Tribunal by its impugned judgment and award has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,75,200/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization, on account of the death of deceased Ramappa in the road traffic accident.
The claimants on the ground that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and it requires enhancement, have presented this appeal.
The brief facts of the case on hand are, claimant No. 1(a) is the wife of the deceased and claimant Nos. 1(b), 1(c), 1(d) and 1(e) are the minor children. They have filed the claim petition u/s 166 of the MV Act claiming compensation against the respondents on account of the untimely death of the deceased in the road traffic accident that occurred on 21.3.2008 at about 4.00 p.m. on account of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry bearing No. KA-19/1110. According to the claimants, due to the untimely death of the deceased in the road traffic accident, the wife has lost her husband at an young age of 26 years and the children have lost their father''s love and affection, inspiration, guidance and security. He was the only earning member of the family and his death has affected the social and economic condition of the family. Deceased was hale and healthy prior to the accident and was aged about 35 years. By profession he was a loader in lorry. The said matter had come up before the Tribunal for consideration. The Tribunal after hearing both sides and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, has taken the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- per month and by applying the multiplier of 16 awarded Rs. 1,15,200/-. But instead of awarding compensation towards loss of dependency, it has awarded the amount towards loss of estate and conventional heads. It has awarded Rs. 40,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs. 20,000/- towards conventional heads. In all, Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,75,200/- with 6% interest from the date of petition till its realization. Being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed, the appellants/claimants have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants at the outset that the Tribunal has erred in assessing income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- per month which is on the lower side. Deceased was aged about 35 years at the time of accident and by profession he was a loader in a lorry and a skilled labourer. As such, his income may be re-determined reasonably and after deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses, reasonable amount be awarded towards loss of dependency and also conventional heads. Further, it is submitted that the deceased was inpatient for a period of 8 months in S.N.R. Hospital, Kolar from 22.3.2008 to 2.6.2008, he died on 19.3.2009 due to the injuries sustained. The Tribunal has failed to award any amount towards conveyance, attendant charges and nourishing food. As such, the compensation awarded requires to be predetermined by modifying the impugned judgment and award.
As against this, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-Insurer inter alia contended that substantial amount has been awarded by the Tribunal, after due consideration of the oral, documentary and other evidence on record. But, however, he has not disputed that the Tribunal has erred in awarding compensation towards loss of estate instead of loss of dependency and same may be considered in accordance with law and also reasonable compensation may be awarded towards incidental expenses.
After careful consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and after perusal of the impugned judgment and award the only point that would arise for consideration is:
Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?
The occurrence of the accident resulting in death of the deceased in the road traffic accident is not in dispute. Further, it is not in dispute that the claimants are none other than the wife and four minor children of the deceased. It is also not in dispute that deceased was aged 35 years and was a loader in the lorry. He was hale and healthy prior to the accident. He was the only earning member of the family. The accident is of the year 2008. In spite of giving medication they could not save the deceased. He succumbed to the injuries on 19.3.2009. They might have spent reasonable amount towards conveyance, nourishing food, attendant charges and also medical expenses as referred above. It is significant to note that the Tribunal has grossly erred in arriving at the loss of dependency at Rs. 1,15,200/- by taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- p.m. and deducting 1/5th of the amount the deceased would have saved, which is constrainable and cannot under any circumstances be sustained. The same is liable to be vitiated for the reason that the loss of dependency has to be calculated only on the basis of the income that deceased would have contributed towards the family and not the income that the deceased would have saved. Therefore the reasoning given by Tribunal at paragraph No. 13 of its judgment is liable to be vitiated. Accordingly, having regard to the age, avocation and the year of accident, we deem it fit to re-assess the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,000/- per month to meet the ends of justice, out of which, if 1/4th is deducted towards personal expenses since the claimants are five in number i.e., Rs. 1000/-, the net income would be Rs. 3000/- per month. Since the deceased was aged 35 years, the appropriate multiplier would be 16. Accordingly, we re-determine the loss of dependency at Rs. 5,76,000/- (Rs. 3000 x 12 x ''16''). Accordingly, it is awarded.
Further, it is reasonable to award Rs. 50,000/- towards conventional heads like loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, loss of estate, transportation and funeral expenses. Taking into consideration the medical bills, conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges and also that considerable amount would have been spent towards treatment as the deceased was inpatient in the hospital for a period of 8 months, an amount of Rs. 75,000/- is awarded towards medical and incidental expenses instead of Rs. 40,000/-. Thus in all, claimants would be entitled to Rs. 7,01,000/- as against Rs. 1,75,200/- i.e., there would be enhancement of Rs. 5,25,800/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 4.12.2010 passed in MVC No. 8203/2008 on the file of the IV Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member MACT, Bangalore is hereby modified awarding Rs. 5,25,800/-with 6% interest from the date of petition till its realization.
The 2nd respondent-Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment.
Out of the compensation amount, Rs. 1,00,000/- each with proportionate interest shall be invested in the name of the appellant No. 1(b), (c), (d) and (e) till they attain the age of 30 years in any of the nationalized or scheduled bank and appellant No. 1(a) is entitled to withdraw the interest periodically till they attain the age of 21 years for their welfare. From 22-30 years appellant No. 1(b), (c), (d) and (e) are entitled to withdraw the periodical interest.
Rs. 1,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the name of appellant No. 1(a) for a period of 10 years renewable for another 10 years in any of the nationalized or scheduled bank and she is entitled to withdraw the interest periodically.
Remaining Rs. 25,800/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of appellant No. 1(a) immediately after deposit by the 2nd respondent-Insurer.
Draw the award, accordingly.
Sri B. Pradeep, learned counsel is permitted to file vakalath for respondent No. 2 within four weeks from today.