Geetha Bai and Others vs Vijay and Others

N.K. Patil, J.—Though this matter is posted today for orders, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for both the parties, the same is taken up for Final Disposal.

This appeal by the appellants-claimants is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 29/05/2012, passed in MVC No. 492/2011, by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-IV, Davanagere, (hereinafter referred to as ''Tribunal'' for short), for enhancement of compensation, on the ground that, a sum of Rs. 5,95,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under different heads with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till its deposit as against the claim Rs. 25,50,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased Sri. Hanumantha Rao, in the road traffic accident is inadequate.

In brief, the facts of the case are:

"The appellants are the wife and children of the deceased Sri. Hanumantha Rao. They filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation against the respondents, on account of the death of the deceased in the road traffic accident, contending that, on 29.8.2010 at about 6.00 p.m. deceased was going on his cycle on the left side of the road near Fish Market at Aruna Circle. At that time, the driver of a Tractor-Trailer bearing Reg. No. KA.17.T.9957/KA. 17.2893 came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to him and caused injuries. Immediately, he was taken to C.G. Hospital, Davangere, but he succumbed to the injuries on his way."

It is the further case of the appellants that, deceased was aged about 40 years, hale and healthy prior to the accident, working as Mason and earning Rs. 10,000/- per month and looking after the welfare of the family by contributing his entire earnings to the family. Due to his untimely death, wife has lost her husband, children are deprived of the love and affection, guidance and security of their father and they suffered financial loss as they have lost their bread earner, apart from mental shock and agony.

The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and other material available on file, has allowed the claim petition in part and awarded the compensation of Rs. 5,95,000/- under different heads with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its deposit.

Being dis- satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants have presented this appeal, for enhancement of compensation.

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned counsel for Insurer.

The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, at the outset is that, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 4,500/- per month is on the lower side and is liable to be re-assessed atleast at Rs. 5,500/- to Rs. 6,000/- per month, on the ground that, deceased was aged about 40 years, Mason by profession and dependants are his wife and children and the accident is of the year 2010. Further, he submits that, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards conventional heads is on the lower side and is liable to be enhanced. He further submits that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its deposit is on the lower side and is liable to be enhanced atleast to 8% to 9% p.a. in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court and this Court. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified.

As against this, learned counsel appearing for the Insurer, inter-alia, contended and substantiated that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file and therefore, it does not call for interference.

After hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties and after careful perusal of the material available on record at threadbare, including the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the only point that arises for our consideration is:

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

The occurrence of the accident and the resultant death of the deceased are not in dispute. Further, it is not in dispute that deceased was aged about 40 years, hale and healthy prior to the accident, working as Mason and the dependants are his wife and children. On account of untimely death of the deceased, the appellant No. 1, wife, aged about 32 years has lost her husband, appellant Nos. 2 to 4, children who are aged about 11, 10 and 6 years are deprived of the love and affection, guidance and security of their father and it has affected social and economic condition of the family and it has to be compensated reasonably. Further, it emerges that, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,500/- per month, which is on the lower side and it needs to be enhanced. Having regard to the age and occupation of the deceased and the year of accident and number of dependants, we re-assess his income at Rs. 5,500/- per month instead of Rs. 4,500/- per month as assessed by the Tribunal. Out of which, if 1/4th Rs. 1,375/-) is deducted towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased since there are four dependants in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of 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 , his net income comes to Rs. 4,125/- per month. The appropriate multiplier applicable is ''15'' since the deceased was aged about 40 years as rightly adopted by the Tribunal and we accept the same. Therefore, we re-determine the loss of dependency at Rs. 7,42,500/- ( Rs. 4,125/- x 12 x 15) instead of Rs. 5,40,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal and accordingly, it is awarded.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above and in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court in catena of judgments, we award a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 40,000/- towards; loss of love and affection at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- each to the appellant Nos. 1 to 4, Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 25,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses instead of Rs. 55,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

Further, it is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its deposit is on the lower side and is liable to be enhanced since the accident is of the year 2010. We find some substance in the said submission. Therefore, in the light of the judgment of Apex Court and this Court we award the rate of interest at 8% per annum on the enhanced compensation.

In all, the appellants are entitled to the total compensation of Rs. 9,32,500/- instead of Rs. 5,95,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. There would be an enhancement of Rs. 3,37,500/- with interest at 8% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization.

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 29/05/2012, passed in MVC No. 492/2011, by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-IV, Davanagere, is hereby modified, awarding a sum of Rs. 3,37,500/- with interest at 8% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization, in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

The Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 3,37,500/- with interest at 8% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Immediately on deposit by the Insurer, out of the enhanced compensation of Rs. 3,37,500/-, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized or Scheduled or Grameena Bank, in the name of appellant No. 1 for a period of ten years and renewable by another ten years, with liberty reserved to her to withdraw the interest accrued on it, periodically.

A sum of Rs. 50,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized or Scheduled or Grameena Bank, in the names of each of the appellant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 till they attain 30 years, with liberty reserved to the appellant No. 1 to withdraw the interest accrued on it, periodically, for the welfare of appellant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 till they attain 21 years and from 22 years to 30 years, they are at liberty to withdraw the interest accrued on it periodically.

The remaining sum of Rs. 87,500/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the appellant No. 1 immediately.

Draw the award, accordingly.