AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Budihal R.B., J
This appeal preferred by the appellants-claimants is directed against the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes (SCCH-15) at Bangalore (for short ''the Tribunal) in MVC No. 207/2011 dated 7.7.2012. The Tribunal, by its judgment, has awarded Rs. 3,64,500/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. Brief facts of the case are that appellant Nos. 1 and 2, being the legal representatives of deceased T. Suresh, filed a claim petition u/s 163A of the MV Act claiming compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in a road traffic accident occurred on 1.11.2010. On the said date, at about 4.30 a.m., the deceased was proceeding from Tamilnadu towards Mysore on Bangalore-Mysore road. He was a cleaner in a Lorry bearing No. TAI/3877. The said lorry was stationed on the extreme left side of the said road in front of Subash Nursing Home and the deceased was checking the rear side of the lorry. At that time, driver of the LGV bearing No. KA-03-A-2794 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the deceased. Due to the impact, the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries and on the way to the hospital, he succumbed to the injuries. The deceased was aged 22 years and he was earning Rs. 40,000/- per annum. He used to contribute the entire earning to the maintenance of the family. Due to the untimely death, the appellants put to great hardship. It is the case of the appellants that the accident was caused because of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the LGV bearing No. KA-03-A-2794. Upon service of summons, respondent No. 1 appeared through the counsel, but not chosen to file written statement. Since respondent No. 3 did not appear before the Tribunal, he was placed ex-parte. Respondent No. 2-insurance company through its Counsel filed written statement admitting the issuance of the policy in respect of the offending vehicle, but denied the allegation that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the LGV bearing No. KA-03-A-2794. It is further contended that the accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased himself. Respondent No. 2 had also denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased. It was contended that the claim petition was excessive, exorbitant and sought to dismiss the petition. After considering the materials on record, the Tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs. 3,64,500/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.
Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, during the course of the arguments, submitted that the deceased was serving as a cleaner in the lorry earning Rs. 40,000/- per annum and used to contribute the entire earning to the maintenance of the family. Due to untimely death of the deceased, the appellants were put to shock and mental agony. The Tribunal has not awarded just and reasonable compensation and whatever the amount awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. He submitted to reassess the income of the deceased and to award the adequate compensation towards loss of dependency and also on the other heads.
As against this, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent insurance company, during the course of the arguments, submitted that the Tribunal has considered both oral and documentary evidence and the other materials on record properly and awarded reasonable compensation. There are no grounds for this Court to interfere with the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and hence, sought to dismiss the appeal.
We have carefully considered the arguments of the learned counsel on both sides and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal and oral and documentary evidence placed before the Tribunal.
Occurrence of the accident resulting in the death of Suresh is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the appellants are the legal representatives of the deceased Suresh. Looking to the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, we are of the considered view that the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 20,000/- per annum is on the lower side and accordingly, we assess the same to Rs. 36,000/- per annum. Out of Rs. 36,000/-, if 1/3rd is deducted towards personal expenses, remaining amount comes to Rs. 24,000/- per annum. The deceased was aged 22 years at the time of the accident and hence, the proper multiplier applicable is 18. Accordingly, the compensation towards loss of dependency comes to Rs. 4,32,000/-. We also award Rs. 4,500/- under the conventional head. In all, the appellants are entitled to the compensation of Rs. 4,36,500/- as against Rs. 3,64,500/- awarded by the Tribunal and the enhancement comes to Rs. 72,000/-. Having regard to the facts and circumstances as stated above, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes (SCCH-15) at Bangalore, in MVC No. 207/2011 dated 7.7.2012 is hereby modified.
Respondent No. 2-insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 72,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization before the Tribunal within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The Tribunal shall release the enhanced compensation of Rs. 72,000/- with accrued interest in favour of the appellants in equal proportion, on deposit by respondent No. 2-insurance company.