AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil, J.—The appeal by the Corporation and the Cross objections by the claimants-cross objectors are directed against the same judgment and award dated 09/09/2010 passed in MVC No. 207/2009 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge & Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-7, Shivamogga, (for short ''Tribunal''). The Tribunal by its judgment and award, has awarded a Rs. 31,09,423/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its deposit, on account of the death of the deceased Sri. Prasanth. M in the road traffic accident.
In brief, the facts of the case are:
The claimants are the mother and younger brother of the deceased Sri. Prasanth M. On account of the death of the deceased in the road traffic accident, they filed a claim petition before the Tribunal u/s 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation contending that, on 2.11.2008 the deceased along with the claimants and other family members had been to Kukke Subramanya and after pooja, they left Kukke Subramanya to come to Shimoga. Deceased was travelling in KSRTC bus bearing Reg. No. KA. 19F.2555 at about 2.00 p.m. on 2.11.2008 to go to Bangalore and when the said bus came near Gundya on NH-48, the drive of the said bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, lost control over the bus, due to which, it went out of the road and toppled down. As a result, deceased and others sustained head injury. Immediately, deceased was taken to A.J. Hospital for treatment, but he succumbed to the injuries on 3.11.2008 at about 1-00 a.m.
It is the further case of the claimants that, deceased was aged about 26 years and hale and healthy prior to the accident. He was a brilliant and qualified Software Engineer, undergone a course in Computer C Programme and working as Software Engineer in Cranes Software International Limited Bangalore and drawing the salary of Rs. 30,354/- per month as per salary certificate and looking after his mother and brother. Due to his untimely death, claimant No. 1 has lost her son who was her future hopes and security and claimant No. 2 has lost the guidance and inspiration of his brother and they also lost their bread earner and put to mental shock and agony apart from financial distress.
The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, has allowed the claim petition in part, awarding the compensation of Rs. 31,09,423/- under different heads with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till deposit.
Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the Corporation has presented the appeal, contending that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is disproportionate to the income of the deceased and is liable to be reduced and the claimants have filed cross objection for enhancement of compensation contending that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate.
We have heard learned counsel appearing for the Corporation and learned counsel appearing for claimants at considerable length of time.
Learned counsel Sri. K. Nagaraja, appearing for the Corporation submitted that, the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 29,703/- per month for calculating loss of dependency, without following the well settled law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court and this Court and contrary to the material on record. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for claimants-cross objectors, inter-alia, contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of dependency and towards conventional heads is inadequate and it requires to be enhanced reasonably. To support his submission, he vehemently submitted that, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased instead of 50% and ought to have applied proper multiplier taking the age of the deceased instead of the age of his mother. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified by awarding reasonable compensation towards loss of dependency and towards conventional heads.
After careful consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for both parties and after perusal of the materials available on file, including the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, it emerges that, the occurrence of the accident and the resultant death of the deceased are not in dispute. Further it 13 not in dispute that, deceased was aged about 26 years, working as Software Engineer in MNC in Bangalore, the dependants are his mother and younger brother and they have filed a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation on account of the death of the deceased due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus belonging to the Corporation. It is the case of the claimants that deceased was working as Software Engineer in MNC and drawing the salary of Rs. 30,354/- per month as per Ex. P10 salary certificate and we accept the same. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the claimants, claimants are entitled to another 50% of the income of the deceased towards future prospects in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma''s case reported in 2009 ACJ 1298, since deceased was aged about 26 years. 50% of Rs. 30,354/- comes to Rs. 15,177/- and if the same is added to Rs. 30,354/-, the total income comes to Rs. 45,531/- ( Rs. 30,354/- + 15,177) per month and per annum, it works out to Rs. 5,46,372/-. Out of which, if 30% ( Rs. 1,63,911/-) towards income tax and a sum of Rs. 2,400/-.are deducted, his remaining amount comes to Rs. 3,80,061/- per annum. Out of which, if 50% ( Rs. 1,90,030/-) is deducted towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased since he was a bachelor, his net income per annum comes to Rs. 1,90,031/-. Accepting the Multiplier of ''13'' adopted by the Tribunal taking the age of the younger parent, mother of the deceased was 47 years as just and proper, we re-determine the loss of dependency at Rs. 24,70,403/- ( Rs. 1,90,031/- x 13) instead of Rs. 30,89,112/- awarded by the Tribunal and accordingly, it is awarded.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we award a sum of Rs. 45,000/- towards conventional heads i.e. towards loss of love and affection, loss of estate and transportation and funeral expenses instead of Rs. 10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. However, a sum of Rs. 10,311/- awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses is just and proper and it does not call for interference. In all, the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 25,25,714/- instead of Rs. 31,09,423/- awarded by the Tribunal. There would be a reduction of compensation of Rs. 5,83,709/-.. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the Corporation is allowed in part and the Cross objection filed by the claimants-cross objectors is dismissed as devoid of merits.
The impugned judgment and award dated 09/09/2010 passed in, MVC No. 207/2009 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge & Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-7, Shivamogga, is hereby modified, awarding compensation of Rs. 25,25,714/- instead of Rs. 31,09,423/- awarded by the Tribunal. There would be a reduction of compensation of Rs. 5,83,709/-.
The Corporation is directed to deposit the remaining compensation amount with interest, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The apportionment and manner of disbursement ordered by the Tribunal gets proportionately reduced to the extent of reduction made by this Court.
The amount deposited by the Corporation shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal immediately.
Draw the award, accordingly.
Learned counsel Sri. K. Nagaraja is permitted to file vakalath for R1-Corporaion in the Cross objection, within four weeks from today.