Sunil and Others vs The Superintendent of Police and Others

P.S. Dinesh Kumar, J.

Learned Government Pleader accepts notice for respondents. With consent of both the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

The appellants are parents and younger brother of the deceased - Shreedhar Sunil Patil, who succumbed to the injuries in a road traffic accident when a water tanker belonging to the Police Department dashed against the motorcycle, which the deceased was riding.

For the sake of connivance, the parties shall be referred to as per their status before the Tribunal.

The claimants presented a claim petition before the II-Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Belgaum (''Tribunal'' for short) contending inter alia that the deceased was riding his motorcycle near Channamma Circle in Belgaum on 28.03.2013 which was dashed against by the offending vehicle belonging to the Police Department and the victim succumbed to the injuries on the following day. The deceased was working as a meson/mestri under Class-I Contractor and earning Rs. 12,000/- per month. The deceased was also carrying on agricultural operations growing commercial crops and earning Rs. 2,00,000/- p.a. The deceased was maintaining himself and his family, which consisted of himself and the claimants. On these pleadings, the claimants sought for compensation of Rs. 25,00,000/-.

To prove their case, the first claimant, the father of the deceased is examined as PW1 and the Contractor under whom the deceased was said to be workings is examined as PW2. 25 documents have been got marked on behalf of the claimants. On behalf of the respondents, no witnesses were examined. But insurance policy has been marked as Ex.R1. On consideration of the materials on record and evaluation of evidence, the Tribunal disbelieved the claim that the deceased was working under PW2 as meson and earning Rs. 12,000/- per month. In respect of the agricultural income, the Tribunal has held that there was no indication that the deceased was working in the lands so as to earn Rs. 2,00,000/- p.a. In the circumstances, the daily income of the deceased in the absence of any cogent material on record has been reckoned at Rs. 200/- per day and Rs. 6,000/- per month. The Tribunal has computed loss of dependency by adding 30% to the income of the deceased towards loss of future prospectus. Reducing 50% towards his personal expenses and applying multiplier of 18 claimants have been awarded Rs. 8,42,400/-. The Tribunal has also awarded compensation of Rs. 16,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 10,000/-towards funeral and transportation of dead body. In all the Tribunal has awarded the total compensation of Rs. 8,88,400/- with 6% interest p.a. from the date of filing of petition till its entire realization by the respondent No. 2.

We have heard Sri. Harish S. Maigur, learned counsel for the appellants, Smt. Veena Hegde, learned HCGP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and perused the records.

Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contends that the Tribunal has erred in disbelieving the salary certificate-Ex.P12, which clearly establishes that the deceased was working as a meson under the Contractor-PW2 and earning Rs. 12,000/- per month. He further submits that the record of rights-Exs.P14 to 24 clearly demonstrate that admittedly the family of the deceased is owning agricultural lands measuring about 25 acres and growing crops. Thus according to him by any stretch of imagination the earning capacity of the deceased could not have been less than Rs. 2,00,000/- p.a. from the agricultural operations. He further submits that the compensation awarded under the conventional heads is also grossly inadequate and prays for allowing the appeal.

Per contra, the learned HCGP while supporting the award submits that the deceased could not be carrying on two avocations. Either the deceased could have been meson or an agriculturist and in the light of specific assertion that he was working as meson under PW2, the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the deceased was did not derive any income as an agriculturist. Adverting to the salary certificate-Ex.P12, learned HCGP submits that the same is not supported by any proof and there was no other materials to support the plea that the deceased working as a meson, such as any bank entry or had receipt etc., to show that the deceased was receiving the salary claimed. She further submits that the compensation awarded under the head loss of dependency'' itself is much more than what ought to have been awarded and prays for dismissal of the appeal.

The facts are not in dispute. This is an appeal filed by the parents and younger brother of the deceased. A young boy aged about 19 years has died in a road traffic accident. Except Ex. P. 12 there was no other material before the Tribunal with regard to the earning capacity of the deceased. In the absence of any proof of payment of salary, the Tribunal has rightly disbelieved Ex.P12. So far as the agricultural income is concerned, the counsel for the respondents is right in her submission that the deceased could have been either a meson or an agriculturist. In the absence of any cogent material with regard to the earning capacity, the Tribunal in our opinion, has rightly construed Rs. 6,000/- as monthly income of the deceased to calculate the loss of dependency and awarded Rs. 8,42,400/- by adding 30% towards future prosecutes. In the absence of any appeal by the respondents, we do not wish to disturb the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, keeping in view the young age of the deceased. Insofar as the compensation awarded towards loss of love and affection and loss of estate, we are of considered opinion that the compensation awarded under the said heads are grossly inadequate and require to be enhanced. Accordingly, we persuaded to award a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of estate.

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is re-determined as under:

The claimants shall be thus entitled to a compensation of Rs. 10,18,400/- as against Rs. 8,88,400/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of presentation of the claim petition before the Tribunal till the date of payment.

The respondents are directed to pay the compensation excluding the amount, if any, already paid with interest at 9% p.a. to be computed from the date of presentation of the claim petition till the date of payment within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The disbursement of the compensation shall be in same proportion as ordered by the Tribunal. No costs.