D. Chandrakala and Others vs Murthy and Others

N.K. Patil, J.—Though this appeal is posted for orders, the same is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for both the parties.

This appeal by the claimants is directed against the judgment and award dated 20th May 2009, passed in MVC No. 92/2007, by the Judge, Court of Small Causes & Civil Judge (Sr. Dn), Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mysore, (for short, ''Tribunal'') for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 7,88,000/- awarded in favour of the claimants as against their claim for Rs. 62,10,000/-, is inadequate.

The facts in brief are that, the claimants are the wife, two minor children and parents of the deceased B.S. Mahadeviah. They filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that, at about 10:30 PM, on 09-01-2006, when the deceased was moving on his motor bike bearing Registration No. KA-09/EB-729, on Bannur-Mysore Road, the driver of Maxi Cab bearing Registration No. KA-09/A-1711, came at a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor bike of the deceased. Due to the impact, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and was immediately shifted to Gopalagowda Hospital, but unfortunately, he succumbed to the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident, on the same day.

It is the case of the appellants that, the deceased was aged about 36 years and working as Head Master, earning good salary and hale and healthy prior to the accident. On account of the untimely death of the deceased, the appellants have lost the love and affection, inspiration and guidance, apart from social, financial and moral support 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 20th May, 2009. 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. 7,88,000/- 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 the learned counsel appearing for appellants and also the Insurer, for quite some time.

It is the submission of learned counsel appearing for claimants/appellants that, the Tribunal grossly erred in taking the income of the deceased at only Rs. 6,000/- per month, disbelieving the Salary Certificate produced at Ex. P10. He submits that the claimants have stated that the deceased was aged about 36 years and earning a sum of Rs. 10,500/- per month as salary. But, disbelieving the same, the Tribunal, without any basis has assessed the income of the deceased at only Rs. 6,000/- per month. The same is liable to be re-assessed. The claimants are none other than the wife, two minor children and parents of the deceased and on account of his untimely death, they have suffered monetarily and also socially. Therefore, he submitted that, reasonable compensation may be awarded, by adopting proper multiplier and deducting 1/4th towards the personal expenses of the deceased and the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal may be modified.

As against this, Shri. A.M. Venkatesh, learned counsel appearing for Insurer vehemently submitted that the compensation awarded by Tribunal is after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file and hence, interference in the same is uncalled for. However, after going through the original records placed before us, he fairly submitted that reasonable income may be re-assessed and the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal be modified in accordance with law.

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

"Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal on account of the death of the deceased is just and reasonable?"

The undisputed facts of the case are the occurrence of accident and the resultant death of the deceased. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was aged about 36 years and working as Head Master. To substantiate the same, the appellants have produced Salary Certificate at Ex. P10, which shows that the deceased was getting salary of Rs. 10,500/- per month. But, the Tribunal has totally disbelieved the same on hyper technical grounds that it does not bear the date or the reason for which it is issued, etc. But, it can be seen that the Tribunal is also not justified in assessing the income of the deceased at only Rs. 6,000/- per month. The same is on the lower side and needs to be reassessed. The accident is of the year 2006 and the deceased was aged about 36 years and working as Head Master. Therefore, having regard to the age, avocation, year of accident and also the Salary Certificate at Ex. P10, we accept the Salary Certificate and re-assess the income of the deceased at Rs. 10,500/- per month, to meet the ends of justice. Further, considering the number of dependents, i.e. five, we deduct 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased as against 1/3rd deducted by Tribunal. Accordingly, If 1/4th (i.e. Rs. 2,625/-) is deducted from Rs. 10,500/- towards his personal expenses, the net income would be Rs. 7,875/- per month. Further, it is stated that the deceased was aged about 36 years as on the date of accident. Therefore, for the said age, the proper multiplier applicable is ''15'' as per the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, as against ''16'' adopted by Tribunal. Thus, the compensation towards loss of dependency would work out to Rs. 14,17,500/- (i.e. Rs. 7,875/- x 12 x 15'') as against Rs. 7,68,000/- awarded by Tribunal.

Further, the Tribunal grossly erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards the conventional heads, viz. loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, loss of estate and transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. Therefore, considering the fact that the wife has lost her life partner at an young age, both the children are minor and have lost the guidance, love and affection and inspiration in life from their father and the parents have lost the social, moral and financial security on account of the untimely death of the deceased and also considering the age of the wife, we deem it fit and proper to award a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of love and affection; Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 25,000/- towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses as against Rs. 20,000/- awarded by Tribunal towards conventional heads. Thus, the total compensation payable to claimants works out to Rs. 15,57,500/- as against Rs. 7,88,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

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 20th May 2009, passed in MVC No. 92/2007, by the Judge, Court of Small Causes & Civil Judge (Sr. Dn), Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mysore, is hereby modified, awarding a sum of Rs. 15,57,500/- as against Rs. 7,88,000/- 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. 7,69,500/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, excluding interest for the delayed period of 1409 days in filing the appeal.

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 7,69,500/-, with interest thereon at 6% per annum, within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment, excluding interest for the delayed period of 1409 days in filing the appeal.

Immediately on such deposit by the Insurance Company, a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the name of first appellant -wife of deceased, in Fixed Deposit, in any scheduled/Nationalized Bank, for a period of ten years, renewable by another ten years, with liberty reserved to her to withdraw the periodical interest.

Further, a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- each with proportionate interest shall be invested in the names of second and third appellants - minor children of deceased, in Fixed Deposit, in any scheduled/Nationalized Bank, till they attain the age of 30 years, with liberty reserved to the appellant No. 1- mother to withdraw the periodical interest, for their welfare, till they attain the age of 21 years and from 22 years to 30 years, they are entitled to withdraw their respective periodical interest.

A sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the name of fifth appellant - mother of deceased, in Fixed Deposit, in any scheduled/Nationalized Bank, for a period of five years, renewable by another five years, with liberty reserved to her to withdraw the periodical interest.

Remaining sum of Rs. 69,500/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the appellant Nos. 1 and 5, in equal proportion, immediately.

Office to draw award, accordingly.

In view of disposal of main appeal on merits, enhancing compensation, Misc. Cvl. 2072/2010 does not survive for consideration and is disposed of as having become infructuous.