Venkataramanappa vs Shashikumar S.M.

Mrs. S. Sujatha, J.—This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, [the Tribunal'', for short] in MVC No. 6108/2011.

Briefly stated the facts are:

That the appellants are husband and children of deceased Venkatamma who succumbed to the fatal injuries sustained by her in the road traffic accident which occurred on 5.82011 owing to actionable negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle Tempo bearing registration No. KA 08 B 9888. The claim petition was resisted by the respondents 1 and 2. The Tribunal, after evaluating the evidence on record, awarded total compensation of Rs. 4,41,000/- with interest at 6% per annum foisting 10% of the contributory negligence on the deceased Venkatamma who was a pedestrian on the road. Being aggrieved, the appellants are before this Court.

Learned Counsel for the Appellants contends that the documents on record clearly establish that the accident in question occurred due to the sole negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal, without appreciating these aspects, attributed 10% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The Tribunal proceeded to fix the contributory negligence on the deceased Venkatamma based on the admission said to have been made by PW.l. PW.1-husband of the deceased Venkatamma is an illiterate person. In the cross examination, he had deposed that deceased Venkatamma, while crossing the road in the rain, met with the road traffic accident due to the actionable negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, but however, she had not looked at the vehicles coming on the road. This statement is only a faux pas which cannot be given probative value, as much as, the illiterate agriculturist is concerned. Accordingly, he seeks that no negligence can be fixed on the deceased Venkatamma.

As regards the quantum, learned Counsel for the appellants would contend that the factual aspects clearly reveal that the deceased was a Coolie in the agricultural field and while she was on her work, met with the accident. Even considering the avocation of the deceased, the monthly income determined by the Tribunal at Rs. 4,500/- is too meager and the same requires to be enhanced. It is further submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads is on lower side. Accordingly, he seeks for enhancement of the compensation.

Per contra, learned Counsel for the second respondent-Insurance company justifying the impugned Judgment and Award would contend that PW. 1 - husband of the deceased was an eye witness to the accident and in his cross examination, he made a categorical statement that the deceased while crossing the road in the rain, without looking at the vehicles on the road met with the accident. This admission made by PW.1 - husband of the deceased amply proves contributory negligence of the deceased Venkatamma. Considering this evidence of PW. 1, the Tribunal has fixed the contributory negligence at 10% on the deceased Venkatamma which cannot be found fault with.

As regards the quantum, learned Counsel would contend that the Tribunal has extensively considered the evidence and awarded just and reasonable compensation which does not call for any interference by this Court.

Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, it is evident that the deceased Venkatamma was aged about 55 at the time of the accident and was a labourer working in the agricultural fields. She met with the road traffic accident on 5.8.2011 while crossing the road. The deceased was crossing the road in the rain and that might have caused her in not noticing the offending vehicle. The evidence of PW. 1 clearly establishes this fact that the deceased while crossing the road in rain without looking to the vehicles on the road met with the motor vehicle accident. Thus, the Tribunal fixing the contributory negligence at 10% on the deceased Venkatamma based on the evidence of PW.1, cannot be found fault with.

As regards the quantum, it is apt to refer to the normal mode of determination made by this Court as well as Lok Adalat in assessing the monthly income of the daily wage labourer during the year 2011. This Court is normally adopting the monthly income at Rs. 6,500/- of a daily wage employee even in the absence of any cogent evidence placed on record b}'' the claimants. Adopting the same at Rs. 4,500/-, the loss of dependency works out to Rs. 5,72,000/- deducting one-third towards personal expenses of the deceased with the multiplier of 11. The compensation awarded under the different heads is abysmally low compared to the age, date of the accident and the avocation of the deceased and the dependents. It would be just and proper to award compensation of Rs. 75,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral and obsequies charges and transportation charges of dead body, based on the principles of law declared by the Apex Court in the case of ''Rajesh And Others v. Rajbir Singh And Others'' reported in 2013 [9] SCC 54.

Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified as under:

SI.No.

Particulars

Amount [in Rs. ]

1

Loss of dependency

5,72,000

2

Loss of love and affection

75,000

3

Loss of consortium

50,000

4

Funeral expenses, transportation of dead body

25,000

5

Loss of estate

10,000

TOTAL

7,32,000

Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified to Rs. 7,32,000/- as against Rs. 4,41,000/-. The appellants shall be entitled to 90% of the total compensation amount of Rs. 7,32,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the realization. The apportionment among the claimants shall be in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal.

In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.