The Managing Director vs Noorjahan

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. The appellant, the North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, has filed this appeal questioning the quantum of compensation awarded in favour of the legal representatives of the deceased victim of a road accident.

It is stated that one Shri Abdul R Kaginelli, an advocate practising at the Haveri Bar, while travelling in a bus, had suffered injuries and is said to have succumbed to the injuries. However, there was no causal connection with the injuries and the bus involved in the accident. There was no complaint lodged of any such accident. However, it is claimed that while the bus went over a hump without warning, the deceased was thrown up as a result of which, his head and neck were injured, since it struck against a luggage carrier in the bus. Thereafter, since he had suffered latent injuries, he was admitted in a hospital and later died of the injuries. However, it is the case of the appellant that the direct connection with the accident and the injuries leading to the death of the deceased was not established. The Tribunal, however, has accepted the charge sheet filed, which was done only on the pressure brought by the Bar Association, to the effect that the deceased had suffered injuries as a result of the freak accident resulting in his death. In any event, the learned counsel would submit that the notional income of the deceased has been adopted at Rs. 5,000/- per month and there was no evidence tendered as regards the actual income of the deceased. If the deceased was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month, there ought to have been some semblance of evidence tendered in this regard as to the years of practice put in by him, the number of cases he had on hand etc., However, no such effort was made and the amount has been mechanically adopted for the purpose of computing loss of dependency and the learned counsel seeks to question the income adopted and the multiplier adopted. Further, the learned Counsel would also seek to question other conventional heads of compensation in the Tribunal having awarded a substantial sum of Rs. 5,24,217/-.

While on the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents would point out that the deceased was aged 49 and was in the prime of his life and career and to contend that he was earning less than Rs. 5,000/- per month is therefore not tenable. The court having adopted Rs. 5,000/- per month was on the lower side and since the deceased was apparently not an income tax assessee, there was no documentary material produced in support of his case. And the same does not result in any exorbitant amount of compensation being granted. The conventional heads of claim includes loss of consortium which is assessed at Rs. 10,000/-. The learned Counsel would submit that unfortunately, the respondents - claimants have not sought to challenge the award. The sole head of loss of consortium would entitle the claimants to a substantial enhancement in view of a recent decision of the Supreme Court. The learned Counsel would hence submit that even if the income is substantially reduced in arriving at the loss of dependency, the claimants are entitled to a substantial compensation, if compensation under other heads are taken into account.

This argument of the counsel for the respondents cannot be negated. It is indeed to be noticed that the compensation towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses is awarded at Rs. 10,000/-, which is not realistic. The grant of compensation under the head ''loss of estate'' in a sum of Rs. 10,000/- is also not realistic. The Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 10,000/- under the head ''loss of consortium''. If compensation under these three heads are considerably enhanced, there would be a substantial enhancement of compensation, which would clearly offset any reduction in the loss of dependency. Therefore, there is no warrant for interference as it would result in gross injustice to the claimant - respondents even there is any further reduction in the amount of compensation that is granted.

The appeal is dismissed. The amount deposited be released in favour of the respondents.