Fathima Afsar and Others vs Yellappa Natikar and Others

N.K. Patil, J—These two appeals respectively are by the claimants and the Corporation being aggrieved by the impugned common judgment and award dated 26th July 2013 passed in M.V.C. No. 145/2010 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and M.A.C.T., Virajpet (hereinafter referred to as ''Tribunal'' for short). The Tribunal by its impugned common Judgment and Award, awarded a sum of Rs. 17,40,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation on account of the death of the deceased late Sri. Manna Munawar in the road traffic accident. It is the case of the claimants that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of dependency is inadequate and requires enhancement. On the other hand, it is the case of the Corporation that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head loss of dependency is exorbitant and disproportionate to the income of the deceased. Thus, both felt necessitated to present these two appeals respectively.

The brief facts of the case on hand are that, the deceased met with an accident on 11.11.2009 at about 11.30 a.m. when he was driving his Hyundai Santro Car bearing Reg. No. KA-04/MB-2712 along with his two sons. When they reached Kallabetta (Hunsur) Junction, a KSRTC Bus bearing Reg. No. KA-09/F-3714 driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner from the opposite side i.e. Hunsur to Madikeri Road and dashed against the Car. Due to the impact, the deceased sustained grievous injuries all over the body and succumbed to the same on the way to the Hospital. The appellant No. 1 is the wife of the deceased Sri. Manna Munawar, appellants/claimants 2, 3 and 4 are their minor children. They have filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation against the Corporation and its Driver contending that the deceased was aged about 45 years, bright, energetic and committed businessman running cloth, pepper and timber business in the name and style of ''Manna Stores'' at Main Road, Virajpet, earning substantial income and whatever income he earned, he used to spend the same to the welfare of the family. He was the only bread earner in the family. Due to his untimely death, wife has lost her companion, minor children have lost love and affection, inspiration and guidance of their father. Further, it is the case of the claimants that the deceased was an agriculturist owning 5.60 acres and 1.10 acres in Sy. No. 38/2 situated at Ambatty Village, Virajpet Taluk. On account of untimely death of the deceased in a road traffic accident, there is total social and economic loss to the family. Taking all these aspects into consideration, they have filed claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation against the Corporation and its driver.

The said matter had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal in turn after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence and other material available on record, has taken the income of the deceased at Rs. 15,000/- per month and deducted 1/3rd towards his personal expenses i.e. Rs. 5,000/- and has taken the net income at Rs. 10,000/- per month towards contribution to the family on the part of the deceased and by applying the multiplier ''14'', it awarded Rs. 16,80,000/- towards loss of dependency and Rs. 60,000/- towards conventional heads i.e. loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, loss of estate and transportation and funeral expenses. In all the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 17,40,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. Being dissatisfied with the impugned Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal, the claimants and the Corporation both have presented these two appeals seeking appropriate relief as stated supra.

We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the claimants and the Corporation and perused the impugned common judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

It is the submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants, Sri. Adinarayan, at the outset that, the Tribunal has erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards loss of dependency and conventional heads, and what is awarded is inadequate and liable to be enhanced by modifying the impugned Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal. He further pointed out and relied upon the documents Ex. P19 -certified copy of Income Tax acknowledgment, Ex. P20 - certified copy of Form Vat-7, Exs. P21 and P22 - copies of RTC extract and also Ex. P23 - certified copy of Jamabandi and submitted that he was bright and competent businessman doing cloth, pepper and also timber business in the name and style of ''Manna Stores'' at Virajpet. This aspect of the matter has not been considered properly and assessed the total income of the deceased at Rs. 15,000/- per month, which is on the lower side. The deceased was aged about 45 years at the time of accident. Therefore, the income of the deceased may be re-assessed reasonably and further he has pointed out that the Tribunal also erred in deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses and the same may be taken as 1/4th as the dependents are wife and three minor children. Therefore, he submits that the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified by awarding reasonable compensation towards loss of dependency and conventional heads.

As against this, the learned Counsel appearing for the Corporation Sri. F.S. Dabali inter-alia vehemently contended that the Tribunal committed error in assessing the income of deceased at Rs. 15,000/- per month which is disproportionate to the income of the deceased. To substantiate his submission, he pointed out that the said business was run by the deceased along with his brothers who are all partners of the said firm and it is continued by his wife - 1st appellant/claimant along with the brothers of deceased. Now, the 1st claimant/wife is also partner in the said business. Therefore, there is no loss from the business. Further, he submits that the claimants/appellants have not produced any credible documents to show that the deceased was earning income of Rs. 15,000/- per month. As such, it is disproportionate and the same may be reduced by modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

After careful consideration of the submission of the learned Counsel appearing for both the parties and after perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the only point that arises for consideration is:

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

The occurrence of the accident and resultant death of the deceased in the road traffic accident are not in dispute. The claimants are none other than wife and minor children of the deceased which is also not in dispute. The deceased was aged about 45 years, hale and healthy prior to the accident and he met with an accident and sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to the injuries in the road traffic accident that occurred on 11.11.2009 at about 11.30 a.m. it is the case of the claimants that, claimant No. 1 herself examined as PW-1, she has sworn to the affidavit and examined in chief and lengthy cross-examination was made by the Corporation through its Counsel and elicited in her cross-examination to disbelieve and deny the evidence of PW-1 - wife of the deceased that she has not produced any credible documents to show that the deceased was getting substantial income nor produced any document to show the exact income of the deceased. He further submitted that, it is not the deceased paying any income tax except stating categorically that her husband was running business doing cloth business, timber and pepper and also owning agricultural land along with family members to an extent of 5.60 acres and 1.10 acres respectively and he is one of the partner of the firm namely ''Manna Stores'' situated at Virajpet. The partnership firm is continued and the 1st appellant - wife is continued as partner of the said firm.

The accident occurred in the year 2009. Having regard to the year of accident, age and avocation of deceased and also multi-faceted avocation business, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the notional income of deceased at Rs. 15,000/- per month and also deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses. In the light of the ratio of law, laid down by the Apex Court. Considering the fact that the wife is managing the business being Proprietrix and there is no loss in the business, the Tribunal is justified in deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased and awarded reasonable compensation of Rs. 16,80,000/- towards loss of dependency by adopting the multiplier of ''14''. Further, the Tribunal is justified in awarding Rs. 60,000/- towards conventional heads. The said compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. We don''t find any good grounds to interfere nor the appellants/claimants have made out any case for enhancement.

Regarding the submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the Corporation Sri. F.S. Dabali that the income of the deceased taken by the Tribunal at Rs. 15,000/- is disproportionate and to that effect the claimants have not produced any credible documents, the said submission cannot be accepted for the reason that a business man was doing various business like cloth business, timber business and pepper business as he was partner to the business. But there is total loss to the family. The dependents are wife and three children, the wife has lost her companion at her young age and children have lost love and affection, inspiration and guidance and due to untimely death of deceased their life is jeopardised as he was the only bread earning member of the family.

Taking all these aspects into consideration, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 15,000/- p.m. and we don''t find any error or unreasonableness to re-assess the income of the deceased. The Tribunal after appreciation of credible oral and documentary evidence available on record, has recorded a finding of fact and awarded reasonable compensation which is just and reasonable. Hence, interference for the same is uncalled for.

Taking all these aspects into consideration, neither the claimants nor Corporation have made out any good ground for interference in the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. Hence, we decline to grant the relief sought for by the claimants and also the Corporation.

For the foregoing reasons, the appeals filed by the claimants and the Corporation are dismissed as devoid of merits.

The amount deposited by the Corporation shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal immediately.

Office is directed to send the LCR to the jurisdictional Tribunal immediately.