AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the claimants is directed against the judgment and award dated 22nd July 2009, passed in MVC No. 4937/2008, by the XII Additional Small Causes Judge, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, (for short, ''Tribunal'') for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 3,99,000/- awarded in favour of the claimants as against their claim for Rs. 15,00,000/-, is inadequate.
The facts in brief are that, the claimant No. 1 is the wife, claimant No. 2 is the mother and claimant Nos. 3 to 5 are the minor children of deceased V. Gangadhar. They filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that, at about 11:00 AM, on 23-05-2008, when the deceased was riding the motor cycle bearing Registration No. KA-02/HB-3565 in Peenya 2nd Stage Road, PIA NTTF junction, Bangalore, at that time, the driver of BMTC bus bearing Registration No. KA-01/F-1560 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, so as to endanger human life and dashed against the motor cycle of deceased and due to the impact, the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries and immediately, he was shifted to Sanjeevini Hospital, where first aid treatment was given and thereafter shifted to NIMHANS Hospital, Bangalore, where he was admitted as in-patient But, in spite of the best treatment, he succumbed to the said injuries, on the same day at 6:15 P.M.
It is the case of the appellants that, the deceased was aged about 32 years and working as a Driver of a heavy vehicle, earning a sum of Rs. 7,000/- per month and hale and healthy prior to the accident. On account of the untimely death of the deceased V. Gangadhar, the first appellant has lost her life partner, the children have lost the love and affection, social, financial and moral support and the mother has lost the social and financial security at her old age and therefore, they have 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 22nd July, 2008. 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. 3,99,000/- 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.
I have gone through the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal and heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned counsel appearing for second respondent/Insurer, for quite some time.
Learned counsel appearing for appellants, Shri. Shripad V. Shastri, vehemently submitted that, the Tribunal committed an error, in awarding meager compensation for the death of the deceased V. Gangadhar, resulting in miscarriage of justice, for the reason that, the deceased was aged about 32 years, working as Driver of a heavy vehicle, earning income of Rs. 7,000/- per month, but the Tribunal erred in re-assessing the income of the deceased at only Rs. 3,000/- per month, which is liable to be re-assessed. Further, he vehemently submitted that, the deceased was the only earning member in the family and he used to spend the entire earnings for the welfare of his wife, minor children and mother, who are in all five dependents. Therefore, he submitted that the monthly income of the deceased may be reasonably re-assessed between Rs. 7,000/- and Rs. 8,000/- and adopt the multiplier of 16, considering the age of deceased as 32 years and deduct 1/4th towards the personal and living expenses of deceased, having regard to the number of dependents being five and modify the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal.
Further, he submitted that the compensation awarded by Tribunal towards conventional heads is also on the lower side and considering the age of the widow and the decisions of the Hon''ble Apex Court and this Court in host of judgments, the claimants are entitled to higher compensation towards the conventional heads. Therefore, he submitted that reasonable enhancement be made towards conventional heads also and the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, be modified accordingly.
As against this, learned counsel appearing for Insurer, Shri. R. Rajagopalan, inter alia contended and substantiated the judgment and award passed by Tribunal stating that the same is passed after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file and after consideration of the entire material available on file and hence, the compensation awarded by Tribunal is just and reasonable and it does not call for interference.
After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, learned counsel appearing for the Insurer and after careful perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the only point that arise for my consideration in this appeal is:
"Whether the compensation awarded by Tribunal is just and reasonable?"
After careful perusal of the entire material available on file, it can be seen that, the claimants are none other than the wife, three minor children and the mother of the deceased V. Gangadhar. Occurrence of accident and the resultant death of the deceased V. Gangadhar are not in dispute. It is stated that the deceased was aged about 32 years, working as a Driver of heavy vehicle, earning a sum of Rs. 7,000/- per month. But, the Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- per month. The same is on the lower side and liable to be reassessed for the reason that the accident is of the year 2008 and the deceased was a young and energetic man aged about 32 years and working as a Driver of heavy vehicle. Therefore, the income has to be re-assessed, for the purpose of awarding compensation towards loss of dependency. Therefore, considering the age, avocation and also the year of accident, I re-assess the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 6,000/-, to meet the ends of justice. Out of the said sum, since the number of dependents are five, 1/4th has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. Accordingly, if 1/4th (i.e. Rs. 1,500/-) is deducted from Rs. 6,000/- towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased, the net income would be Rs. 4,500/- per annum. For the age of the deceased being 32 years, the proper multiplier to be adopted is ''16'' as per the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) ACJ 1298 : AIR 2009 SC 3104 : (2009) CLT 1055 : (2009) 6 JT 495 : (2009) 6 SCALE 129 : (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 5 SCR 1098 : (2009) 5 UJ 2280 : (2009) AIRSCW 4992 : (2009) 3 Supreme 487 as rightly adopted by Tribunal. Thus, the compensation towards loss of dependency would work out to Rs. 8,64,000/- (i.e. Rs. 4,500/- x 12 x ''16'') as against Rs. 3,84,000/- awarded by Tribunal.
Further, the Tribunal has erred in awarding a sum of only Rs. 15,000/- towards conventional heads. The same is on the lower side. As per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma''s case (supra), I award a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs. 25,000/- towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses and Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of estate as against the compensation awarded by Tribunal towards conventional heads.
Thus, the total compensation would come to Rs. 10,14,000/- as against Rs. 3,99,000/- awarded by Tribunal, with interest at 6% 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 22nd July 2009, passed in MVC No. 4937/2008, by the XII Additional Small Causes Judge, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, is hereby modified, awarding a sum of Rs. 6,15,000/-, with interest at 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization, in addition to the compensation awarded by Tribunal.
The second respondent/Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 6,15,000/-, 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 Insurer, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in Fixed Deposit, in the name of the Appellant No. 1 - wife of deceased, in any nationalized or scheduled Bank, for a period of fifteen years, renewable for ten years, with liberty reserved to her to withdraw the interest periodically.
A sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- each with proportionate interest shall be invested in Fixed Deposit, in the names of the Appellant Nos. 3 to 5 - minor children of deceased, in any nationalized or scheduled Bank, till they attain the age of 30 years, with liberty reserved to the appellant No. 1/mother and natural guardian to withdraw the periodical interest for their welfare till they attain the age of 22 years and from 23 years, they are entitled to withdraw their respective interest, periodically.
A sum of Rs. 50,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in Fixed Deposit, in the name of the Appellant No. 2 -mother of deceased, in any nationalized or scheduled Bank, for a period of five years, renewable for five years, with liberty reserved to her to withdraw the interest periodically.
Remaining sum of Rs. 1,65,000/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of Appellant Nos. 1 and 2, in equal proportion immediately.
Office to draw award, accordingly.
Shri. R. Rajagopalan, learned counsel is permitted to file vakalath on behalf of Insurer, within four weeks from today.