The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Smt. Annapurna and Others

N.K. Patil

This appeal by the Insurer is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 2314 August 2007 passed in MVC No. 284/2005 by the I Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn) and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimoga, (for short, ''Tribunal) for reduction of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 211,10,180/- awarded in favour of the claimants as against their claim for Rs. 213,45,000/-, is exhorbitant, excessive and is liable to be reduced. The facts in brief are that, claimant No.1 is the wie, claimant No3. 2 to 4 are the minor children and claimant No.4 is the mother of the deceased late Palaksha. They filed the claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that at about 9:4E A.M, on 04-06-2005, when the deceased was proceeding on the left side of the road, near Chinnamumbapura village, in Shimoga Taluk, he met with an accident, on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Tempo Trax bearing Registration No.KA-30/M/679. Due to the impact, the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries and was immediately taken to the Nanjappa Hospital Shimoga. But, unfortunately, he succumbed to the injuries on the same day.

It is the case of the claimants that, the deceased was hale and healthy prior to the date of accident, which resulted in his death. He was a permanent employee of the University of Agricultural Science Navile, Shimoga, drawing salary of Rs. 5,041/- per month and on account of his untimely death, the wife has lost the life partner, the family has lost the only source of income, the children have lost the love and affection, inspiration and guidance from their father and the mother has lost the social and financial support permanently and therefore, they have to be compensated reasonably.

On account of the death of the deceased, the claimants filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of a sum of Rs. 13.45 lal this against the appellant and others. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 23rd August, 2007. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file, after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition, awarding a sum of Rs. 7.1,10,180/- under different heads, with 6% interest per annum, from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Being aggrieved by the qa_iant1 m. of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the Insurer is in appeal before this Court, seeking reduction of she same.

4.1 have heard the learned counsel appearing for Insurer and the learned counsel for claimants, for considerable length of time.

The principal submission canvassed by the learned counsel appearing for the Insurer is that, the Tribunal grossly erred in assessing the income of the deceased at double the monthly income of Rs. 25,041/-, taking into consideration that if the deceased would have been alive, he would have gone regular increments and promotions. The same is on the higher side and needs to be re-assessed. Further, he submits that the multiplier of ''17'' adopted by the Tribunal is on the higher side, since in view of the Sarla Verma''s case, the proper multiplier is ''16''. Therefore, the compensation awarded towards loss of dependency taking double the said monthly income and higher multiplier is liable to be reduced considerably.

As against this, learned counsel appearing for claimants, inter alia, contended and substantiated the impugned judgment and award, stating that the same is passed after due consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and other relevant material available on file. Further, the Tribunal has specifically observed that the deceased was aged about only 35 years. If the principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma''s case is adopted, then the claimants would be entitled to higher compensation, both towards loss of dependency and towards conventional heads. Therefore, he submits'' that the compensation awarded by Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for interference.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, I do not find any error or material irregularity as such committed by the Tribunal in assessing the income of the deceased at 210,082/- per month, which is double the monthly income of Rs. 5,041/-, for the reason that as per the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma''s case, since the deceased was aged about 35 years, 50% has to be added to the monthly income and 1/4th has to be deducted since the dependents are five in number. Thus, by adopting ''16'' multiplier, loss of dependency would work out to Rs. 210,88,856/-. If a sum of Rs. 45,000/- is awarded towards conventional heads, then, the total compensation would in fact work out to Rs. 211,33,856/-. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, coupled with the age, avocation, number of dependents, year of accident, income assessed, multiplier applied, etc., I am of the considered view that the Tribunal is justified in awarding the compensation on account of the death of the deceased 3n the road traffic accident. Hence, it does not call for interference. For the ma: ors stated above, the appeal filed by the appellant Insurer is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. Accordingly, it is dismissed.

The amount, if any, in deposit by the Insurer shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal, forthwith. Office to draw award, accordingly.