Haseentaj and Others vs The Managing Director, KSRTC

N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the claimants is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 01.08.2014 passed in MVC No. 94/2013 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ramanagara, (hereinafter referred to as ''Tribunal'' for short) seeking to enhance the compensation.

The Tribunal by its judgment and award has awarded compensation of Rs. 5,07,277/- under different heads with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the realisation, as against the claim of the appellants on account of the death of the deceased-Mohd. Ali in the road traffic accident and the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and it is required to be enhanced.

In brief, the facts of the case are:

The 1st appellant is the wife, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th appellants are the sons of the deceased Mohd. Ali and they have filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation against the respondent, on account of the untimely death of the deceased-Mohd. Ali in the road traffic accident.

It is the case of the claimants that on 08.04.2013 at about 04.50 p.m. when the deceased was traveling in an auto rickshaw bearing Reg. No. KA-55-2330 on Channapatna-Sathnur Road, at that time, a KSRTC bus bearing No. KA-42-F-200 came in a high speed with rash and negligent manner, being driven by its driver, suddenly turned the bus and dashed against the auto rickshaw, due to which the deceased sustained fatal injuries. He was shifted to Channapatna Government hospital and later sent to BGS Global Hospital, Bengaluru and K.R. Hospital, Bengaluru, where he succumbed to the injuries on 14.04.2013. It is further the case of the appellants that the deceased was aged about 59 years, working as fixing of horse shoe for cattles, earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. He was the sole bread earner of the family. Entire family was depending upon the income of the deceased. On account of his untimely death, the wife has lost her life partner and the children have lost love and affection, guidance, inspiration and security in life. It has also affected social, moral and economic condition of the family. Therefore, they were constrained to file a claim petition against the respondent claiming compensation. 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 record, allowed the claim petition in part, awarding compensation of Rs. 5,07,277/- under different heads with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Not being satisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the appellants have presented this appeal, for enhancement of compensation.

The submission of Sri. K.P. Bhuvan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, at the outset is that, the Tribunal has erred in considering the income of the deceased at only Rs. 4,500/- per month without any valid reasons. To substantiate his submission, he is quick to point out that the deceased was aged about 59 years, doing the work of fixing the horse shoe for cattles and earning Rs. 15,000/- p.m. Entire family was depending on his income. He was the sole bread earner of the family. Therefore, he submits that income of the deceased may be reassessed between Rs. 7,000/- & Rs. 7,500/- per. Out of the same, 1/3rd may be deducted and considering the age of the deceased as 59 years, by applying the multiplier ''9'', reasonable compensation may be awarded towards loss of dependency. Further, the Tribunal has erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards loss of consortium and loss of estate and the same requires enhancement. Therefore, he submits that, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be modified awarding just and reasonable compensation and also enhance the rate of interest.

Per contra, Sri. F.S. Dabali, learned counsel appearing for respondent-KSRTC inter alia, contended and substantiated that, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper. After due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal is justified in awarding reasonable compensation. Therefore, interference by this Court is not called for.

After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and on perusal of the material available on record, including 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?"

It is not in dispute that the deceased died in the road traffic accident. Claimants are none other than the wife and sons of the deceased. Further, it is not in dispute that, the deceased was aged about 59 years at the time of accident, was hale and healthy and doing the job of fixing the horse shoe for cattles. It is stated that he was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month and looking after the welfare of his family. The entire family was depending on the income of the deceased. The deceased was the sole bread earner of the family. On account of his untimely death, the wife has lost her life partner and the children have lost love and affection, guidance, inspiration and security in life. It has also affected social, moral and economic condition of the family. The accident has occurred on 08.04.2013 and he died on 14.04.2013. Having regard to the age, avocation and year of the accident, we can safely re-assess the income of the deceased at Rs. 7,000/- per month, to meet the ends of justice. Appellants are four in number. As the 2nd appellant is working in a private sector company and earning income, he is not treated as a dependant on the income of the deceased. Taking into consideration the remaining three persons as dependents on the income of the deceased, 1/3rd should be deducted towards his personal expenses. Out of the income of the deceased, if 1/3rd is deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased, it comes to Rs. 2,333/- ( Rs. 7,000/- x 1/3rd). After deduction, the income of the deceased works out to Rs. 4,667/-. Appropriate multiplier is ''9'' for the age of the deceased. Accordingly, we re-determine loss of dependency at Rs. 5,04,036/- ( Rs. 4,667/- x 12 x 9) as against Rs. 4,19,148/- awarded by the Tribunal.

As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants, the Tribunal has not awarded reasonable compensation towards conventional heads. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court and this Court in catena of decisions, we deem it fit to award Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium as against Rs. 10,000/-, Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection as against Rs. 20,000/-, Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of estate as against Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses as against Rs. 10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Further, the interest at 6% p.a. awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. The accident is of the year 2013. Following the judgment of the Supreme Court and this Court, we award interest at 9% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of petition till its realisation. Hence, in all the appellants are entitled for Rs. 7,54,036/-. Further the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 38,129/- towards medical expenses, to meet expenses incurred by the appellants, we round it of to Rs. 40,000/- towards the same and the break-up is as follows:

There will be an enhancement of Rs. 2,86,759/- with 9% interest per annum from the date of petition till realisation.

In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 01.08.2014 passed in MVC No. 94/2013 on the file of the Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ramanagara, is hereby modified awarding a sum of Rs. 7,94,036/- as against Rs. 5,07,277/- with interest at 9% p.a. on the enhanced sum from the date of petition till its realisation. There shall be enhancement of compensation of Rs. 2,86,759/-, excluding interest for the delayed period of 228 days.

The respondent-Corporation is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest at 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realisation, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment excluding the interest for the delayed period of 228 days.

Out of the enhanced compensation, Rs. 2,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank, in the name of the 1st appellant-Smt. Haseentaj, for a period of Fifteen years and renewable for Fifteen years, with liberty to her to withdraw the periodical interest accrued on it.

The remaining Rs. 86,759/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the 1st appellant - wife of the deceased immediately, on deposit by respondent-corporation. Office to draw the award, accordingly.

Sri. F.S. Dabali, learned counsel, is permitted to file vakalath within four weeks from today.