AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Path, J.—Though this matter is posted for admission, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the same is taken up for final hearing and is disposed of.
This appeal by the claimants is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 7th October 2006, passed in M.V.C. No. 6138/2005, by the XII Additional Judge and Member, Motor Accident. Claims Tribunal. Metropolitan Area, Bangalore, (for short, ''Tribunal'') for enhancement, of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 4,99,000/-awarded in favour of the claimants as against their claim for Rs. 15.00 Lakhs, is inadequate.
The facts in brief are that, the claimants Appellants are respectively the wife, son and mother of the deceased Late S.D. Ramu. They filed the claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that at about 7:10 P.M. on 18-07-2005, when the deceased was standing in the Adakamaranahaili Bus stop on Bangalore-Tumkur Raod, he met with an accident on account of rash and negligent, driving by the driver of Tempo bearing No. KA-01/A-5667, and due to the injuries sustained in the said accident, he succumbed to the same.
It is the case of the Appellants that, the deceased was aged about 45 years, and working as Supervisor in E.K. Garments, earning Rs. 5,000/- per month and hale and healthy prior to the accident. It is their case that he was contributing the entire sum towards the family requirements and on account of his untimely death, the family has become haywire, the wife has lost the life partner, the son has lost the love and affection of his father and the mother has lost, the social and financial security 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 7th October 2006. 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. 4,99,000/- under different heads, with 6% interest per annum, from the date of petition till the date of deposit. 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 heard learned Counsel for Appellants and learned Counsel for Insurance Company, for considerable length of time.
It is the submission of the learned Counsel appearing for Appellants that the Tribunal is justified in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 4.500/- and deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses, but erred in adopting the multiplier of ''13'' when in fact, it ought to have applied multiplier of ''14''. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified accordingly.
As against this, learned Counsel appearing for the Insurer, inter alia, contended and substantiated the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, stating that the compensation awarded by Tribunal is just and reasonable and it does not call for interference.
After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, after careful perusal of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and after going through the original records made available, it is seen that the occurrence of accident and the resultant death of the deceased are not in dispute. The deceased was aged about 45 years and a supervisor by profession. The monthly income assessed by Tribunal at Rs. 4,500/- and deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses is just and proper and it does not call for interference. However, having regard to the age of the deceased, the appropriate multiplier applicable is ''14'' as per the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, and not ''13'' as applied by Tribunal. Accordingly, I re-determine compensation payable towards loss of dependency at Rs. 5,04,000/- (i.e. Rs. 3,000/- � 12 � ''14'') as against Rs. 4,68,000/- awarded by Tribunal.
Further, the Tribunal also erred in not awarding reasonable compensation under the conventional heads. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I award a sum of Rs. 40,000/- towards the conventional heads such as loss of love and affection, transportation of dead body and funeral expenses, loss of life expectancy/loss of estate and loss of consortium.
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 7th October 2006, passed in M.V.C. No. 6138/2005, by the XII Additional Judge and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore, is hereby modified, awarding a sum of Rs. 5,44,000/- as against Rs. 4,99,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at 6% per annum on the enhanced sum, from the date of petition till the date of realization. The enhanced compensation would be Rs. 45,000/-.
The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 45,000/-, with interest thereon at 6% per annum, within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment and award.
Immediately on such deposit by the Insurance Company, the entire sum shall be released in favour of the Appellants 1 and 3, in equal proportion, immediately.
Office to draw award, accordingly.