AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ram Mohan Reddy, J. - One Srinivas, driver of mini bus bearing certificate of registration KA-04/688, succumbed to grievous injuries, in the accident that occurred on 27.03.1992 involving the offending truck with trailor bearing certificate of registration TDC-7229, insured by the Appellant.
In the claim petition, it is asserted that deceased a driver was earning Rs. 1,200/- per month and batta of Rs. 10/- per day. That petition registered as MVC 1419/1992 before the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, (for short ''MACT'') was dismissed for non prosecution, whence, widow and children of deceased, filed W.P. 14439/2008, and the learned single Judge, by order dated 05.03.2009 allowed the petition, set-aside the order of dismissal, restored the petition to file, and remanded it for fresh consideration, subject to denying interest for the period from 16.01.1999 to 18.08.2014.
Before the MACT, an application for amendment when filed, was allowed, by which, claimants asserted that deceased was earning much more than Rs. 1,500/- and in fact, earned Rs. 6,000/- per month. Except for the sell interested testimony of P.W.1, widow, there was not a titre of evidence to establish either avocation or monthly income of the deceased. However, MACT reckoned avocation of deceased as driver, since he was driving bus which met with accident whence he succumbed to injuries. MACT, accepting the self interest testimony of P.W. 1 over income of the deceased, added Rs. 2,000/- towards future prospects, deducted ⅕th assuming that parents were alive and there were six dependents and by the judgment and award impugned, awarded the following compensation.
Loss of consortium
Rs. 10,000/-
Funeral expenses
Rs. 10,000/-
Loss of company
Rs. 10,000/-
Loss of future earning 6500 x 12 x 17
Rs. 13,26,000/-
TOTAL
Rs. 13,56,000/-
Sri. P.B. Raju, learned counsel for appellant submits that the MACT was not justified in reckoning Rs. 6,000/- as monthly income of the deceased, since, in the claim petitions when filed, it was claimed that deceased was earning Rs. 1,200/- per month and Rs. 10/- as batta. According to the learned counsel, the fact of earning of the deceased when specifically adverted in the claim petition at the earliest point of time, the amendment of monthly income of the deceased to Rs. 6,000/- when not supported by relevant material constituting substantial legal evidence, MACT was not justified in reckoning Rs. 6,000/- monthly income of the deceased, more so, since accident is of the year 1992.
Per contra, learned counsel for claimants seeks to sustain the judgment and award as well merited, fully justified and not calling for interference. Learned counsel submits that it is not the case of the appellant/insurer that parents of the deceased, pre-deceased the son, but, as on the date of accident, were alive and were dependents. Learned counsel hastens to add that any reduction in compensation would not amount to just compensation since meager compensation is awarded towards loss of consortium and loss of care and guidance to three minor children. Learned counsel hastens to add that parents of the deceased died during pendency of the claim petition.
After having heard learned counsel for the parties, examined the judgment and award, the following question arises for decision making:
"Whether, in the facts, circumstances and evidence on record, MACT was justified in awarding Rs. 13,56,000/- with interest at 6% per annum as compensation, by the judgment and award, impugned?"
The answer to the question need not detain the Court for long. In the absence of relevant material constituting substantial legal evidence of the fact that deceased as on 27.03.1992 was earning Rs. 6,000/-, while in the claim petition when filed at the earliest point of time, it was declared on oath that deceased earned Rs. 1,200/- per month and batta of Rs. 10/- per day, the MACT was not justified in reckoning Rs. 6,000/- as monthly income. Reckoning Rs. 1,500/- per month and adding 50% of the same i.e., Rs. 750/- towards future prospects, since deceased was aged 30, loss of income is Rs. 2,250/-. Deceased left behind a young widow, three minor children of which two are daughters, and aged parents, totalling to six members. If that is so, then deducting ⅕th towards personal expenses of the deceased i.e., Rs. 450/-, monthly loss of dependency is Rs. 1,800/- and to the annual loss, applying multiplier 17 as applicable to the, age of the deceased, claimants are entitled to Rs. 3,67,200/- towards loss of dependency, as against Rs. 13,26,000/-, a deduction of Rs. 9,58,800/-.
It is no doubt true that, award of compensation as pecuniary damages under conventional heads of loss of consortium and love and affection at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- each is frugal and does not constitute just compensation. If Rs. 30,000/- each is added under the aforesaid two heads, it is just and fair. Deducting the enhanced compensation of Rs. 60,000/- from out of Rs. 9,58,800/-, the deduction from total compensation is Rs. 8,98,800/-.
In the result, this appeal allowed in part. The judgment and award impugned is modified reducing compensation from Rs. 13,56,000/- to Rs. 4,57,200/- and in all other respects, remains unaltered. The amount in deposit is directed to be transmitted to the MACT forthwith, and if found in excess, be refunded to the appellant.