AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil, J.—Though this matter is listed for orders, with the consent of the learned Counsel for both parties, this appeal is taken up for disposal. This appeal-is filed by the claimants against the impugned judgment and award dated 11.09.2009 passed in MVC No. 3634/2007 on the file of the 14th Additional Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore City (SCCH-10) (hereinafter referred to as ''Tribunal'' for brevity) awarding compensation of Rs. 1,94,270/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit on account of the injuries/death of the deceased Vaidyanathan, in a road traffic accident. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal as inadequate, the appellants/claimants have presented this appeal.
Brief facts of the case are:
Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 are the sons of the deceased. The appellants contend that deceased Vaidyanathan was aged about 77 years and was hale and healthy prior to the accident. Be that as it may, on a fateful day i.e., 26.02.2007 at about 6.40 p.m., opposite to Cafe coffee day, Vidyaranyapura Main Road, Vidyaranyapura, Bangalore, a Maxi Cab Tempo Traveller bearing registration No. KA-05 D-4252, driven by its driver with high speed came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed Vaidyanathan. Due to the impact, he was shifted to M.S. Ramaiah Memorial Hospital, Bangalore. He was also kept in ICU and was in continuous treatment. The injured Vaidyanathan himself filed the claim petition seeking compensation but unfortunately, during the pendency of the claim petition, the deceased succumbed to the injuries on 23.12.2007, in spite of best treatment. Thereafter, the claimants being the legal representatives have come on record. It is the further case of the claimants that they have lost social and moral security and also inspiration and guidance of their father as he was the head and Karta of the family. They are deprived of love and affection of the deceased. Therefore, the appellants were constrained to file a claim petition u/s 166 of M.V. Act claiming compensation. The said claim petition filed by the claimants came up for consideration before the Tribunal and the Tribunal in turn, after perusal of the oral and documentary evidence on file, allowed the claim petition in part awarding a sum of Rs. 1,94.270/- under the head medical expenses as per Ex. P.18 with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of depositing the amount. Being dissatisfied with the same, the claimants have presented this appeal for enhancement.
Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal has awarded only compensation of Rs. 1,94,270/- towards medical expenses as per Ex. P.18 but erred in not awarding any compensation towards loss of dependency, loss of estate, loss of love and affection and transportation and funeral expenses. He also submits that the deceased was a retired employee and getting a pension of Rs. 1,500/- p.m., and he being the Karta of the family, the claimants have lost social and moral security. The Tribunal without justification and without assigning any reasons except in paragraph No. 13 of the judgment, has held that the claimants are not entitled to compensation towards loss of dependency. Therefore, he submits that the judgment and award is liable to be modified by enhancing the compensation.
As against this submission, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company inter alia contended that the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation and the reasons assigned in paragraph No. 13 are just and proper and interference by this Court is not called for.
We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company.
After critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence and other relevant material available on file and the impugned judgment and award, the only point that arise for our consideration in this appeal is,
Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?
The occurrence of the accident and the resultant injuries/death of the deceased Vaidyanathan are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was aged about 77 years and a retired Executive from (PSU) Sail, Durgapur and was earning Rs. 1,500/- p.m. as pension. The deceased himself has filed the claim petition for compensation and inspite of best treatment, he succumbed to the injuries. Thereafter, the legal representatives have come on record. Taking all these factors into consideration, we assess the income at Rs. 1,500/- p.m., and out of which 50% is deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, the balance comes to Rs. 750/- (Rs. 1,500/- Rs. 750/-). The appropriate multiplier is ''5'' and accordingly, we re-determine the compensation towards loss of dependency'' at Rs. 45,000/- (Rs. 750/- x 12 x 5).
The tribunal has also erred in not awarding any compensation towards conventional heads like loss of love and affection, loss of estate and towards transportation and funeral expenses. We therefore, deem it fit to award Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of affection and Rs. 20,000/-towards transportation and funeral expenses and the same is awarded.
Further, the Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs. 1,94,270/- towards medical expenses as per Ex. P.18, and the same does not call for interference by this Court. For the foregoing reasons, the instant appeal filed by the appellants is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 11.09.2009 passed in MVC No. 3634/2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore City (SCCH-10) is hereby modified.
The appellants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 2,79,270/- as against Rs. 1,94,270/- awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation comes to Rs. 85,000/with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation.
The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount within 3 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment and award.
Immediately after the deposit of the said amount, the same shall be released equally in favour of appellant Nos. 1 and 2.
Liberty is reserved to respondent No. 2 to recover the amount from respondent No. 1 in accordance with law, if it is so advised or need arises.