AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.V. Chandrashekara, J.—Notice to respondent Nos. 3 and 5 in MFA. Crob No. 185/2009 is dispensed with as per the memo filed by Sri Harish Kumar.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Both the matters are admitted and they are taken up for final disposal with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the claimants as well as the insurer.
MFA No. 3285/2009 is filed by the insurer, on the ground that the amount of compensation awarded in favour of the claimants in a sum of Rs. 8,75,000/- is exorbitant and excessive. Cross objection has been filed by the claimants, on the ground that the compensation so awarded pursuant to the death of Manjunath, who was hardly aged about 21 years is grossly inadequate.
Perused the judgment passed in MVC No. 511/2006, which was pending on the file of the MACT, Davanagere. The said claim petition has been disposed of on 20.01.2009. Claimant Nos. 1 and 2 are the father and mother of the deceased Manjunath and claimant Nos. 3 and 4 are the younger brothers of deceased Manjunath, who died in a road accident that occurred on 06.02.2005.
The fact that he died in a road accident that occurred on 06.02.2005 involving a Lorry and a Maruthi Car is not in dispute.
What is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the insurer that the MACT has deducted 1/3rd towards the personal expenses and it should not have been done. It is argued that half of the assessed income should be deducted towards the personal expenses as the deceased was a bachelor. There is lot of force in the said submission made by the learned counsel for the insurer.
The Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 7,500/- p.m., on the ground that he was an Auto Consultant. The said assessment is based on documentary and oral evidence, more particularly Exs. P-15 to P-29, which are copies of the sale agreements. The learned Judge has assessed the probable income of the deceased on the basis of broad preponderance of probabilities and the same cannot be found fault with. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the insurer half of the assessed income should be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased, since he was a bachelor. If half of Rs. 7,500/- is deducted towards the personal expenses, the net loss of monthly income would be Rs. 3,750/- which will have to be multiplied by 12 and the proper multiplier applicable in the present case would be based on the age of the mother, who is younger than her husband. The age of the mother is reckoned as 40 years. Then the proper multiplier would be 15.
What is argued before this Court by the learned counsel for the appellant - insurer is that there is no credible evidence in regard to the probable age of the mother and therefore the multiplier applied by the MACT is improper and incorrect. This Court is unable to accept the same since the assertion about the age of the mother of the deceased is not seriously challenged while cross examining her. Hence, the proper multiplier would be 15. Rs. 3,750/- will have to be multiplied by 12 x 15. Then the total loss of future dependency would be Rs. 6,75,000/-.
The learned cross objector has vehemently argued that if half of the assessed income is deducted towards personal expenses, the future prospects of the deceased will have to be taken into consideration. Admittedly, the deceased had passed SSLC examination and was an Auto Consultant. Ex. P-9 is the SSLC marks card and Ex. P-10 is the Driving Licence extract.
Normally, a youth will have a future in his life. This aspect of the matter cannot be ignored. Even in General Manager Kerala State Road Transport Corporation vs. Susamma Thoma''s case reported in AIR 1984 SC 1631, the Hon''ble Apex Court has specifically held that future prospects of a person will have to be taken into consideration. In this regard 30% of the assessed income will have to be added. Then 30% of Rs. 6,75,000/- would be Rs. 2,02,500/-. Then the total loss of dependency is Rs. 8,77,500/-, which would be definitely more than Rs. 8,40,000/- assessed as loss of dependency by the Tribunal.
Learned counsel Sri B.S. Umesh, appearing for the insurer has vehemently argued that adding 30% towards future prospects relating to a self employed person is not at all maintainable, more particularly, in the light of clear observation made by the Hon''ble Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) ACJ 1298 : AIR 2009 SC 3104 : (2009) CLT 1055 : (2009) 6 JT 495 : (2009) 6 SCALE 129 : (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 5 SCR 1098 : (2009) 5 UJ 2280 : (2009) AIRSCW 4992 : (2009) 3 Supreme 487 and subsequently reiterated by the bench consisting of 3 Hon''ble Judges in Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, (2013) 2 ACC 841 : (2013) ACJ 1403 : (2013) 3 CTC 883 : (2013) 8 JT 288 : (2014) 173 PLR 779 : (2013) 3 RCR(Civil) 170 : (2013) 6 SCALE 563 : (2013) 9 SCC 54 : (2014) 1 SCC(L&S) 149 .
But the Apex Court, in the case of Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, (2013) 2 ACC 841 : (2013) ACJ 1403 : (2013) 3 CTC 883 : (2013) 8 JT 288 : (2014) 173 PLR 779 : (2013) 3 RCR(Civil) 170 : (2013) 6 SCALE 563 : (2013) 9 SCC 54 : (2014) 1 SCC(L&S) 149 , at paragraph 7 , has held that future prospects of the deceased has to be considered and it is specifically held that 30% increase in the total income of a self employed person would be just and proper.
Another limb of argument advanced by the learned counsel for the insurer is that the very claim made by the claimants is to an extent of Rs. 8,20,000/- and therefore, there cannot be any compensation in excess of the claim made by the claimants. This Court is unable to accept the arguments for the simple reason that Sections 166 and 168 of MV Act enables the MACT to award just and proper compensation and if the Tribunal or the First Appellate Court comes to a conclusion that the compensation is to be awarded in excess of the one claimed in the claim petition, there is no legal inhibition for the Tribunal or the First Appellate Court to grant compensation in excess of the one claimed in the claim petition.
Only a sum of Rs. 10,000/- has been awarded towards loss of estate''. Rs. 25,000/- would be the reasonable amount under this head. No interference is called for in regard to the compensation of Rs. 15,000/- awarded under the head "Transportation of dead body and funeral expenses'' and Rs. 10,000/- awarded under the head ''Medical treatment''. A sum of Rs. 25,000/- will have to be awarded under the head loss of love and affection''. Thus, the claimant would be entitled for a total compensation under different heads as follows:
Thus the claimants are entitled for a total compensation under different heads to an extent of Rs. 9,52,500/- instead of Rs. 8,75,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. This would be just and proper compensation within the purview of Sections 166 and 168 of Motor Vehicles Act. Thus, the appeal of the insurer will have to be dismissed and cross objection filed by the claimants will have to be allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs. 8,75,000/- to Rs. 9,52,500/-. The claimants are entitled for interest at 6% p.a. on the enhanced compensation from the date of filing of petition till the date of realization.
Appeal filed by the insurer is dismissed. Cross objections filed by the claimants is allowed enhancing the compensation to Rs. 9,52,500/- from Rs. 8,75,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. on the enhanced compensation from the date of filing of the petition till realization.
Judgment and award of the Tribunal stand modified accordingly. The amount, if any, deposited by the insurer shall be returned to the jurisdictional Tribunal.
Parties to bear their own costs.