AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
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 arising out of the impugned judgment and award dated 27/03/2012 passed in MVC No. 1052/2009, by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tumkur, (hereinafter referred to as ''Tribunal'' for short), for enhancement of compensation, on the ground that a sum of Rs. 3,82,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under different heads, with interest at 6% per annum against the claim of Rs. 30,00,000/-, on account of the death the deceased Sri. Parthasarathi T.H., in the road traffic accident is inadequate.
In brief, the facts of the case are:
The appellant Nos. 1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased Sri. Parthasarathi T.H. They filed a claim petition before the Tribunal u/s 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 25.5.2009 at about 12.30 p.m. deceased had been to his village Srinivasapura near Nelamangala on his two wheeler bearing Reg. No. KA.02.1280 from his native place through Dabaspete on NH4 Tumkur-Bangalore road and when he came near T. Begur, at that time, the driver of the lorry bearing No. TN.33.4056 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased and caused the accident. Due to which, he fell down and sustained severe head injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Harsh Hospital, Nelamangala, then he was shifted to NIMHAN Bangalore, then to Seetha Bateja Hospital, Bangalore, then to BGS Global Hospital Bangalore, where he took treatment from 28.5.2009 to 17.6.2009 and then he was shifted to Government Hospital, Tumkur where he took treatment for 2 days and further he was shifted to Vinayaka Hospital Tumkur, he took treatment for two months and then he was taken to his residence and he succumbed to the injuries on 12.10.2009.
It is the further case of the appellants that, deceased was aged about 22 years, hale and healthy prior to the accident and was working as a Driver of a goods vehicle and earning Rs. 6,000/- per month apart from batta. Due to his untimely death, appellant Nos. 1 and 2 who were completely depending upon his earnings have lost their son, who was their future hopes and security, 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. 3,82,000/- under different heads, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till its payment.
Being dissatisfied 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.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 3,000/- per month and the same is on lower side and it needs to be enhanced. Further he submits that a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- awarded towards medical expenses is inadequate, as they have produced 81 prescriptions as per Ex. P13 and 132 Medical bills as per Ex. P14 and that the compensation awarded towards conventional heads is inadequate and it requires to enhanced reasonably. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified.
As against this, learned counsel appearing for the Insurer, Sri. R. Jayaprakash, inter-alia, contended and substantiated that the impugned judgment and award passed 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 the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the materials available on record, 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 on 25.5.2009 and the resultant death of the deceased on 12.10.2009 are not in dispute. The dependants are the parents of the deceased. It is the case of the appellants that, deceased was aged about 22 years and driver of a goods vehicle by profession and earning Rs. 6,000/- per month apart from batta. But to prove the same, appellants have not produced any documents. It emerges from the judgment that, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- per month which is on lower side and it needs to be modified. Therefore, having regard to the age and occupation of the deceased and year of the accident, we re-assess his income at Rs. 5,000/-. Out of which, if 50% ( Rs. 2,500/-) is deducted towards his personal expenses since he was a bachelor, his remaining income comes to Rs. 2,500/- per month. Accepting the multiplier of ''14'' adopted by the Tribunal, taking the age of the younger parent - mother of the deceased as 44 years, as just and proper, we re-determine the loss of dependency at Rs. 4,20,000/- ( Rs. 2,500/- x 12 x 14) instead of Rs. 2,52,000/- awarded by the Tribunal and accordingly, it is awarded.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we award a sum of Rs. 45,000/- towards conventional heads, such as, loss of love and affection, loss of estate and transportation and funeral expenses instead of Rs. 30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Further, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards medical expenses which is on lower side and it needs to be enhanced. It is not in dispute on account of the injuries sustained by the deceased, he was admitted in different hospitals till his death on 12.10.2009 and during the said period, appellants have spent reasonable amount towards medical expenses, conveyance and other incidental charges. To prove the same, appellants have produced 81 prescriptions as per Ex. P13 and produced 132 medical bills as per Ex. P14. The reasoning given by the Tribunal for awarding Rs. 1,00,000/- towards medical expenses is contrary to the material on record. Therefore, we award a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards medical expenses, conveyance and other incidental charges instead of Rs. 1,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. In all, the appellants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 6,15,000/- instead of Rs. 3,82,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. There would be an enhancement of Rs. 2,33,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants is allowed in part and the impugned judgment and award dated 27/03/2012 passed in MVC No. 1052/2009, by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tumkur, is hereby modified, awarding the compensation of Rs. 2,33,000/-with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization, in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
The 2nd respondent - Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 2,33,000/- with interest at 6% 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 such deposit by the 2nd respondent-Insurer, out of the enhanced compensation of Rs. 2,33,000/-, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the Fixed Deposit, in the names of each of the appellant Nos. 1 and 2, in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank, for a period of ten years and renewable by another five years, with liberty reserved to them to withdraw the interest accrued on it, periodically.
The remaining sum of Rs. 22,000/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 in equal proportion, immediately.
Draw the award, accordingly.