A.P. Shankar Rao vs V. Haridass

N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the claimants is directed against the judgment and award dated 8th June 2011, passed in MVC No. 1174/2010, by the I Additional SCJ and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, (SCCH-11), (for short, ''Tribunal'') for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 3,81,000/- awarded in favour of the claimants as against their claim for Rs. 50,00,000/-, is inadequate.

The facts in brief are that, the claimants are none other than the parents of deceased Mr. Abhijith. They filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation of Rs. 50,00,000/-, contending that at about 04:50 P.M., on 27-10-2009, near Kengeri Tank, Mysuru Road, Kengeri, Bangalore, when the deceased Abhijith was riding the Motor cycle bearing Registration No. KA-05/EW-4714, the driver of Cement Concrete Mixer bearing Registration No. KA-05/B-7668 drove the same at high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle of the deceased and caused the accident. Due to the grievous injuries sustained in the said road traffic accident, the deceased Abhijith died.

It is the case of the appellants that, the deceased was aged about 21 years and was prosecuting his studies in 7th Semester Bachelor of Engineering (Computer Science) and working as call Centre, earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. It is stated that he was hale and healthy prior to the accident. On account of the untimely death of the deceased Abhijith, the claimants/parents have lost the love and affection, social and moral support apart from financial security and therefore, it is their case that they are required to be compensated reasonably.

On account of the death of the deceased, the appellants filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, seeking compensation against the respondents. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 8th June, 2011. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, awarding a sum of Rs. 3,81,000/- under different heads, with 6% interest per annum, from the date of petition till the date of payment. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants are in appeal before this Court, seeking enhancement of compensation.

We have gone through the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal and heard learned counsel appearing for appellants and learned counsel appearing for second respondent/Insurer, for quite some time.

The submission of the learned counsel appearing for appellants, at the outset is that, the Tribunal grossly erred in assessing the income of the deceased at only Rs. 4,500/- per month. The same is on the lower side and liable to be re-assessed for the reason that the deceased was prosecuting his studies in 7th Semester B.E. (Computer Science) and being a distinction, had got the merit seat. Meanwhile, he was also doing part-time job at call centre, earning more than Rs. 10,000/- per month and looking after the family members and on account of his death, the family is under severe financial difficulty and they have lost the love and affection, guidance and inspiration in life. Therefore, he vehemently submitted that reasonable income may be re-assessed and deducting 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased and by adopting the appropriate multiplier, considering the age of the younger parent, compensation towards loss of dependency be awarded. Further, he submitted that the claimants are entitled to higher compensation towards the conventional heads as per the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, as against only Rs. 30,000/- awarded by Tribunal. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal is liable to be modified by enhancing the compensation reasonably.

As against this, learned counsel appearing for second respondent-Insurer sought to justify the impugned judgment and award stating that the same is passed after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file and the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased having regard to his age, qualification and the year of accident being 2009. Therefore, interference in the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal is not called for. However, after going through the reasoning given by the Tribunal in its judgment and considering his age, qualification and also the fact that the claimants are none other than the parents of deceased, he fairly submitted that reasonable income may be re-assessed in accordance with law and the judgment and award be modified, awarding just and reasonable compensation.

After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and after careful perusal of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the only point that arise for our consideration in this appeal is,

Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal is just and reasonable?

The undisputed facts of the case are the occurrence of accident and the resultant death of the deceased Abhijith. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was aged about 21 years and prosecuting his 7th Semester B.E. course in Computer Science, having secured merit seat. It is stated that he was working on part time basis in the call centre and earning a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month and was also selected in the campus interview. But, to substantiate the same, the appellants have not produced any credible documents. The accident is of the year 2009 and the claimants are none other than the parents of deceased. However, in the absence of the credible documents, considering the fact that he was prosecuting his studies in 7th semester, number of dependents, year of accident, etc, and his, we re-assess the income of the deceased at Rs. 10,000/- per month, to meet the ends of justice. Since the deceased was a bachelor, we deduct 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased. Accordingly, If 50% (i.e. Rs. 5,000/-) is deducted from Rs. 10,000/- towards his personal expenses, the net income would be Rs. 5,000/- per month. The deceased was aged about 21 years. But, as per the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, , the age of younger parent of the deceased should be taken into consideration for adopting the multiplier, for calculating loss of dependency. In the instant case, the age of the younger parent, mother is 40 years. But, the Tribunal, after assessing the oral and documentary evidence at Ex. P11, has re-assessed the age of the mother as 46 years at paragraph 13 of its judgment. The same is just and proper and we accept the same. Accordingly, for the said age, the proper multiplier applicable is ''13''. Thus, the compensation towards loss of dependency would work out to Rs. 7,80,000/- (i.e. Rs. 5,000/- x 12 x''13'') as against Rs. 3,51,000/- awarded by Tribunal.

Further, the Tribunal has erred in awarding only a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards conventional heads. The same is on the lower side. As per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma''s case (supra), we award a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards conventional heads, such as loss of estate, loss of love and affection and transportation and funeral expenses as against Rs. 30,000/- awarded by Tribunal. Thus the total compensation works out to Rs. 8,30,000/- as against Rs. 3,81,000/- awarded by Tribunal. There would be enhancement of compensation by a sum of Rs. 4,49,000/- with 6% interest per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization.

In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the appeal filed by appellants is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 8th June 2011, passed in MVC No. 1174/2010, by the I Additional SCJ and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, (SCCH-11), is hereby modified, awarding a sum of Rs. 8,30,000/- as against Rs. 3,81,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at 6% per annum on the enhanced sum, from the date of petition till the date of realization. Thus, there would be enhancement of compensation by a sum of Rs. 4,49,000/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

The 2nd respondent-United India Insurance Company Limited is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 4,49,000/-, with interest thereon at 6% per annum, within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment.

Immediately on such deposit by the 2nd Respondent/Insurer, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the name of appellant No. 2/mother of deceased, in Fixed Deposit, in any scheduled/Nationalized Bank, for a period of ten years, renewable by five years, with liberty reserved to her to withdraw the periodical interest.

A sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the name of appellant No. 1/father of deceased, in Fixed Deposit, in any scheduled/Nationalized Bank, for a period of five years, renewable by five years, with liberty reserved to him to withdraw the periodical interest.

Remaining sum of Rs. 1,49,000/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of both the appellants, in equal proportion, immediately

Office to draw award, accordingly.