AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.N. Keshavanarayana, J.—Though this matter is listed today for orders, by consent of the learned counsel appearing on both sides, the matter is heard for final disposal. This appeal is by the claimants in MVC No. 557/2010 on the file of MACT-V, Bijapur, seeking enhancement of compensation on being dis-satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Claimant Nos. 1 & 2 are the nephews (sons of brother) and claimant No. 3 is the wife of the brother of the deceased Baby @ Bebakka, daughter of Kallappa Koli, who died in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 17.02.2010. The claimants claiming to be the heirs of the deceased Baby @ Bebakka sought compensation. The claim petition was opposed by the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle inter alia contending that the claimants are not entitled ''for any compensation, since they were not dependent on the deceased nor they are legal heirs, who could claim any compensation for the death of the deceased.
The Tribunal on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, by the judgment under appeal, after answering the issue regarding actionable negligence in the affirmative holding that the accident was solely due to the negligence of the driver of the Eicher Tempo, held that the claimants are entitled for global compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-towards the loss of estate, though they are not entitled for any compensation under the head of Loss of Dependency. The Tribunal directed the insurer of the offending vehicle to pay the said compensation with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment. Being dis-satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimants are before this court.
I have heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides and perused the judgment under appeal.
Having regard to the relationship of the claimants vis-�-vis the deceased, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the claimants were not dependent on the deceased, as such, they are not entitled for compensation under the head of Loss of Dependency. Nevertheless, in the light of the law laid down by a division Bench of this Court in A. Manavalagan Vs. A. Krishnamurthy and Others, , in a case of this nature, the heirs of the deceased are entitled for the compensation under the head of loss of estate u/s 2 of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. Section- 15 of the Hindu Succession Act deals with General Rules of succession in the case of female Hindus. As per Sub-section (1) of Section 15, the property of a female Hindu dying intestate, shall devolve according to the rules set-out in Section- 16 on different class of heirs enumerated in Clause (a) to (e) therein. It is not in dispute that the deceased has not left behind any of the legal heirs enumerated in Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 15. Under clause (d), the property of such female would devolve on the heirs of her father.
Section 16 of the Hindu Succession Act sets-out the order of succession and manner of distribution among heirs of a female Hindu. According to Rule (1), Among the heirs specified in Rule (1) of Section 15, those in one entry shall be preferred to those in any succeeding entry and those included in the same entry shall take simultaneously. According to Rule (3) of Section 16, the devolution of the property of the intestate on the heirs referred to in clauses(b), (d) and (e) of sub-section (1) and in sub-section (2) to Section 15 shall be in the same order and according to the same rules as would have applied if the property had been the father''s or the mother''s or the husband''s as the case may be, and such person had died intestate in respect thereof immediately after the intestate''s death.
In view of the undisputed fact that claimants 1 & 2 are the sons of the brother of the deceased, they are the heirs of the father of the deceased, therefore, they fall under Clause (d) of sub-section(1) of Section 15 read with Rule (3) of Section 16. However, claimant No. 3 being wife of the brother, she cannot become the heir of the deceased under any of the clauses of Section 15. Therefore, the claimant Nos. 1 & 2 are certainly entitled to seek compensation towards loss of estate on account of the death of the deceased.
In Manavalagan''s case referred to supra, this court has held that the procedure for determination of loss to estate is broadly the same as the procedure for determination of loss of dependency. It is further held that in case of loss to estate, the multiplicand would be annual savings of the deceased and the method of selection of multiplier is however the same, as that of the case involving loss of dependency. It is further observed in the said decision that though the quantum of savings will vary from person to person, there is a need to standardize the quantum of savings for determining the loss to estate, where the claimants are not dependents, in the absence of a specific evidence to the contrary. It is further held therein that quantum of savings shall be taken at one-third of the income of the deceased where the spouses are having independent establishments and this would apply where the family consists of non-dependent brothers/sisters claiming on behalf of the estate, the savings can be taken as 15% of the income and the above percentages, one of course, subject to any specific evidence to the contrary led by the claimants.
In the case on hand, claimants - 1 & 2 are shown aged about 28 and 26 years and their occupation is shown as agriculture. The deceased was stated to be an agricultural coolie. Therefore, claimants - 1 & 2 were-certainly not dependent on the deceased. The deceased was a spinster aged about 25 or 26 years. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that the deceased would have spent major portion of her earning to herself, since there was no other person who was either dependent on her or there was any compulsion on her part to save large sums for the benefit of others. Therefore, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, savings of the deceased could be safely taken at 20% to 25% of her earnings. Having regard to the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2010 and keeping in mind the cost of living and also the wages paid for agricultural labourers during that period, it is just and proper to reckon the monthly earnings of the deceased between Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 4,500/- and monthly savings at Rs. 1,000/-. On this basis, the annual savings by the deceased could be safely taken at Rs. 12,000/-. The appropriate multiplier having regard to the age of the deceased was ''17'', therefore, the total loss of estate works-out to Rs. 2,04,000/-. Therefore, Claimants - 1 & 2 are entitled for this amount towards the loss of estate. In addition to this, they are also entitled for conventional amount of Rs. 6,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, they are entitled for total compensation of Rs. 2,10,000/- as against Rs. 1,50,000/-. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed-in-part enhancing the compensation payable to the claimants - 1 & 2 to Rs. 2,10,000/- as against Rs. 1,50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation of Rs. 60,000/- shall carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment. Respondent No. 2-Insurer shall deposit the enhanced compensation with interest, within six weeks from today. The enhanced compensation shall be shared in equal proportion by claimants - 1 & 2.