Basavaraj vs Chikkanna

B. Manohar, J. - Appellants are the claimants. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hubli (hereinafter referred to as ''the Tribunal'', for short), by its judgment and award dated 2nd February, 2011 passed in M.V.C. No. 714/2004, appellants have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

Appellants are the father and the mother of deceased Rachappa. They filed the claim petition contending that, on 17.4.2004, the deceased Rachappa was proceeding on Hubli-Gadag road on Bajaj M-80 motor cycle bearing registration No. KA-26/E-6995 along with the pillion rider and when he was near Annigeri Cross, a lorry bearing registration No. KA-34/6678, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motor cycle to its hind portion. Due to the said impact, said Rachappa as well as the pillion rider fell down and sustained grievous injuries and said Rachappa succumbed to the injuries. The claimants claimed that the deceased Rachappa was aged 28 years and was working as an agent of Samyukta Karnataka and Times of India daily newspapers, and was also working in Rakshaka Pharma and thereby he was earning an income of Rs. 25,000 per month. They also contended that due to rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry, their son died in the accident and thereby they lost the bread earner of the family. They further contended that since the offending lorry was insured with the 2nd respondent, the owner as well as the insurer were liable to compensate them and hence, they sought for compensation of Rs. 40,00,000.

The Insurance Company filed the written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition inter alia contending that Rachappa was riding the motor cycle in rash and negligent manner and was not holding valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident. Hence, they are not liable to compensate the claimants.

The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties, held that due to rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry, the accident occurred and the son of the claimants died in the said accident. Though the claimants had claimed that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 25,000 per month, the Tribunal found that no document was produced to ,establish the same. However, the Tribunal taking into consideration the documentary evidence adduced, took the income of the deceased as Rs. 6,325 per month from the sale of Samyukta Karnataka and Times of India newspapers. Since the deceased was bachelor, the Tribunal deducted 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses and arrived at the loss of dependency at Rs. 37,950 per annum. Taking into consideration the age of the mother of the deceased, the Tribunal applied the multiplier 11 and awarded a sum of Rs. 4,17,450 towards loss of dependency. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000 under conventional heads. In all, a sum of Rs. 4,37,450 with interest at 6% per annum has been awarded as compensation. The claimants being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of the same.

Mr.. S.M. Kalwad, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants, contended that the deceased was working as a commission agent of Samyukta Karnataka and Times of India newspapers and, in addition to that, he was working as a pharmaceutical distributor in Rakshaka Pharma, but the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased as Rs. 6,325 per month which is on the lower side. In support of his contention, he relied upon a copy of Ex.P.11, which is a certificate issued by Rakshaka Pharma. He also contended that as per the decision of Munna Lal Jain and Another v. Vipin Kumar Sharma, reported in II (2015) ACC 806 (SC) = IV (2015) SLT 621 = (2015) 6 SCC 347, the Tribunal ought to have taken the multiplier having regard to the age of the deceased and not the age of the mother of the deceased. Therefore, he sought for enhancement of compensation.

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company supported the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and sought for dismissal of the appeal.

I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned Advocates for the parties and perused the judgment and award and other relevant records.

The occurrence of the accident and the death of the deceased Rachappa is not in dispute. The dispute is only with regard to the quantum of compensation. The claimants in the claim petition had contended that the deceased was earning more than Rs. 25,000 per month. The power of attorney holder of M/s. Rakshaka Pharma was examined as P.W.2. In his cross-examination, P.W.2 has clearly stated that the deceased was not getting salary from Rakshaka Pharma; that Ex.P.l 1 was not signed by him, but the accountant had signed it; and that he had not seen Ex. P. 11 till the date of his giving evidence before the Court. The author of Ex.P. 11 has not been examined to prove that he was getting salary from Rakshaka Pharma. Therefore, the Tribunal disbelieved Ex.P.11 and taking into consideration that the deceased was working as an agent of Samyukta Karnataka and Times of India newspaper took the income of the deceased as Rs. 6,325 per month, which comes to Rs. 75,900 per annum. Since the deceased was bachelor, the Tribunal has deducted 50% of the income towards his personal expenses and has arrived at the loss of dependency as Rs. 37,950 per annum. However, applying multiplier 11 taking into consideration the age of the mother of the deceased is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Munna Lal Jain''s case referred to supra. Hence, taking into consideration the age of the deceased the appropriate multiplier applicable would be 17 and therefore, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 6,45,150 towards loss of dependency as against Rs. 4,17,450 awarded by the Tribunal. Further, as per the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in III (2009) ACC 708 (SC) = VI (2009) SLT 663 = 162 (2009) DLT 278 (SC) = 2009 ACJ 1298, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 45,000 towards conventional heads as against Rs. 20,000 awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 6,90,150 with interest at 6% per annum as against Rs. 4,37,450 awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, I pass the following Order:

The appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC No. 714/2004 is hereby modified. The claimants are entitled for the total compensation of Rs. 6,90,150 as against Rs. 4,37,450, with interest at 6% per annum. However, in view of the order dated 8.7.2014, the claimants are not entitled for interest on the enhanced compensation for the delayed period of 157 days in filing the appeal.