H.K. Muralidhara and Others vs K. Gangadhara and Others

N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the appellants-claimants is directed against the impugned common judgment and award dated 07/05/2011, passed in MVC No. 107/2006, by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-7, Shivamogga, (hereinafter referred to as ''Tribunal'' for short), for enhancement of compensation, on the ground that, a sum of Rs. 12,60,500/- 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. 52,25,000/-, on account of the death of deceased Smt. Menaka Mahajan, in the road traffic accident is inadequate.

In brief, the facts of the case are:

The appellants are the husband and minor children of the deceased Smt. Menaka Mahajan. They filed a claim petition before the Tribunal through their guardian, grandmother 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 15.5.2005 at 8.00 a.m., the husband of the deceased/appellant No. 1 along with the deceased/his wife, mother-in-law Susheela Bai Majahan and children left to Mysore from Vidyanagara, Shivamogga in his Maruthi 800 bearing Reg. No. KA. 14. M. 2965. Thy reached Channarayapatna at about 12.30 noon and after taking refreshment left Channarayapatna and when they were on the way to Mysore, near K.R. Pet Gandhinagara village cross, the driver of Swaraj Mazda bearing Reg. No. KA. 05.7112 came from Mysore side in a rash and negligent manner extremely on his right side to negotiate a curve and immediately, after spotting the car, he took his vehicle to his extreme left side in panic and appellant No. 1/husband of the deceased was on his left side and to avoid head on collusion took the car to his right side and during that process, driver of swaraj mazda instead of avoiding the accident, suddenly came to his left side and hit the Maruthi 800 on its left. Due to which, his mother-in-law died on the spot and his wife deceased Menaka Mahajan who was sitting in front left seat i.e. adjacent to driver seat sustained injuries to her leg and head, his son and daughters were also sustained injuries and he also sustained injuries and became unconscious. Immediately, they were shifted to Government Hospital at K.R. Pet, where Smt. Menaka Mahajan was admitted and she died in the said hospital.

It is the further case of the appellants that, deceased was aged about 40 years, hale and healthy prior to the accident, working in S.B.I. Shivamogga and drawing the net salary of Rs. 18,230/- per month and looking after the welfare of the family by contributing her entire earnings to the family. Due to her untimely death, appellant No. 1 has lost his wife, appellant Nos. 2 and 3 have lost their mother and are deprived of the love and affection, guidance and security of their mother and also suffered financial loss, 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. 12,60,500/- 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, 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 Tribunal has erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards loss of estate, towards loss of consortium, loss of love and affection and towards transportation and funeral expenses and what is awarded is inadequate and it requires to be enhanced reasonably. To substantiate the said submission, he submitted that, the Tribunal has erred in deducting 3/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased and taking only Rs. 6,826/- per month for calculating loss of estate contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court in hosts of judgment. He further submits that, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased on the ground that husband of the deceased was also employed in the Bank and there are two minor children and ought to have awarded reasonable compensation towards loss of estate. Further, he submitted that, the Tribunal has also erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards loss of consortium, loss of love and affection and towards transportation and funeral expenses. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified by enhancing reasonable compensation.

As against this, learned counsel appearing for the Insurer, 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, following the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court and by assigning cogent and valid reasons and therefore, it does not call for interference.

After hearing the 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 in State Bank of India, Shivamogga and drawing the net salary of Rs. 18,230/- per month and the appellants are her husband and minor children. On account of the death of the deceased, husband has lost his wife and children are deprived of the love and affection, guidance and security of their mother. The Tribunal, following the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma''s case has justified in adding another 50% towards future prospects to the net income of the deceased and arrived the total at Rs. 27,345/- per month and we accept the same. The appellants are not entitled to any loss of dependency as the husband of the deceased is also employed and they are entitled to loss of estate only. Out of Rs. 27,345/- per month, if 50% ( Rs. 13,672/-) is deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased instead of 3/4th as done by the Tribunal, her savings comes to Rs. 13,673/- per month. By adopting multiplier of ''13'' since the husband of the deceased was aged about 46 years at the time of the death of the deceased instead of ''15'' adopted by the Tribunal taking the age of the deceased, we redetermine the loss of estate at Rs. 21,32,988/- ( Rs. 13,673/- x 12 x 13) as against Rs. 12,30,525/- awarded by the Tribunal and accordingly, it is awarded.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above and on account of the untimely death of the deceased, appellants are deprived of the love and affection, guidance and security of their mother and her husband has lost his companion and in the light of the judgments of the Apex Court and this Court, we deem it fit to award a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 75,000/- towards loss of love and affection at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- to the each of the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 and respondent No. 5, and Rs. 25,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses.

In all, the appellants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 23,32,988/- instead of Rs. 12,60,500/- as awarded by the Tribunal. There would be an enhancement of Rs. 10,72,488/- 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. The impugned common judgment and award dated 07/05/2011, passed in MVC No. 107/2006, by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-7, Shivamogga, is hereby modified, awarding a sum of Rs. 10,72,488/- with interest at 6% 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. 10,72,488/- 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 Insurer, the enhanced compensation of Rs. 10,72,488/-, a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the Fixed Deposit in the names of each of the appellant Nos. 2 and 3 in any Nationalized or Scheduled or Grameena Bank, till they attain 40 years, with liberty reserved to them to withdraw the interest accrued on it, periodically.

Remaining sum of Rs. 2,72,488/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of appellant Nos. 1 to 3 in equal proportion.

Draw the award accordingly.