AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.S. Pachhapure, J.—While the insurer has filed MFA No. 200920/14 challenging the liability and quantum of compensation for the death of Manmathayya in an accident that occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Mahindra Bolero jeep bearing reg. No. KA-32/B-4572, the other appeal having been filed by the claimants, seeking enhancement.
The facts reveal that on 29.08.2011, Manmathayya was a pillion rider on the motorcycle bearing reg. No. KA-39/J-3616 and one Manjunath was riding the said motorcycle. At that time, the jeep driven in rash and negligent manner, came and hit the motorcycle and thereby Manmathayya suffered grievous injuries. He died during his treatment on the next day. His legal representatives i.e., wife and children made a claim for compensation before the Tribunal. After recording the evidence, the Tribunal held negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep and awarded a sum of Rs. 5,23,000-00 as compensation with interest at 6% p.a. It also directed the insurer to pay the said sum. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Award, the insurer has filed MFA No. 200920/14, whereas the legal representatives of deceased Manmathayya have filed MFA No. 200818/14.
Heard learned counsel for both the parties.
It is the contention of the insurer that there was negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle to the accident of 50% and the Tribunal committed an error in not accepting the same. Therefore, he submits that the Tribunal was not justified in directing the insurer to pay the compensation awarded.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the legal representatives of deceased Manmathayya submits that the compensation awarded is on the lower side and it needs enhancement. He also submits that as Manmathayya was pillion rider, on the principle of composite negligence, the insurer is responsible to pay the compensation.
It is not in dispute that Manmathayya was a pillion rider on the motorcycle. One Manjunath was the rider of the said motorcycle and the jeep hit the motorcycle and a complaint of this accident is against the driver and rider of both the vehicles. The documents to that effect have been produced and even the charge-sheet is also against the driver and the rider of both the vehicles. Anyhow, the question as to who was negligent and to what extent is not material for the reason that Manmathayya was pillion rider. Under the principle of composite negligence, even assuming that there was any negligence on the part of Manjunath in riding the motorcycle, the insurer, who is the appellant herein is responsible to pay the compensation. At the most it could have recourse to recover the sum payable either from the owner of the motorcycle or the insurer of the said vehicle. The said contention does not come in the way of the liability imposed upon the insurer of the jeep.
So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, it is relevant to note that the deceased was running a kirana shop. The licence is produced at Ex. P10. He was also doing milk vending business and in support of it milk supply card has been produced at Ex. P11. He was holding the land and land extract has been produced at Ex. P12. So, looking to the nature of the business that he was carrying on, the assessment is to be made with regard to his income. The Tribunal has considered his income at Rs. 4,500-00 p.m. The accident is of the year 2011. Even for a labourer, a sum of Rs. 6,000-00 p.m. is considered as income in the Lok Adalath. Taking into consideration the fact that Manmathayya was carrying business, supplying milk and also looking cultivation of his land, it is just and proper to assess his income at Rs. 7,000-00 p.m. 1/3rd has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. Thereby, the contribution to the family would be Rs. 4,667-00 p.m. Proper multiplier is 13. Therefore, the loss of dependency would be;
"Rs.4,667 x 12 x 13 = Rs. 7,28,052-00
[rounded up to Rs. 7,28,000-00]"
Deducting a sum of Rs. 4,68,000-00 awarded by the Tribunal, the legal representatives are entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,60,000-00 towards loss of dependency. Compensation of Rs. 20,000-00 granted towards loss of estate is just and proper. Only Rs. 20,000-00 is granted towards loss of love and affection. Apart from the wife the deceased left the sons and daughter. Rs. 45,000-00 is payable towards loss of love and affection. Deducting the sum of Rs. 20,000-00, they are entitled to Rs. 25,000-00 on this head. Towards loss of consortium, only a sum of Rs. 10,000-00 is granted. The widow of the deceased was aged 45 years old at the time of death of Manmathayya. She has got major sons and daughter. There is no question of her re-marriage. Therefore, taking into consideration her age, Rs. 50,000-00 appears to be reasonable towards loss of consortium and deducting the sum of Rs. 10,000-00, she is entitled to Rs. 40,000-00 on this head. Thereby, Additional compensation payable would be;
Therefore, the legal representatives of the deceased are entitled to a sum of Rs. 3,25,000-00 as additional compensation. Therefore, MFA No. 200920/14 is dismissed. MFA No. 200818/14 is allowed in part.
The appellants in MFA No. 200818/14 are entitled to Rs. 3,25,000-00 with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of the petition till its payment in addition to the compensation payable by the Tribunal. Out of the sum enhanced, a sum of Rs. 1,50,000-00 is payable to the wife of the deceased and the remaining amount shall be shared equally by the other legal representatives. The share of the widow shall be deposited for a period of 5 years in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank linked to the S.B. Account to be opened by her at her convenient place. The interest if any shall be credited to her account periodically and on maturity of the fixed deposit, the sum shall be credited to her S.B. Account. So far as the deposit of compensation in respect of the children is concerned, it is left to the discretion of the Tribunal.
So far as the sons are concerned, the Tribunal may have liberal approach to pay the sum. The amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal.