H.S. Manjula and Others vs Siga Anjaneyulu and Others

N.K. Patil, J—This appeal by the appellants-claimants is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 31/01/2014, passed in MVC No. 7103/2012, by the 14th Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru City (SCCH-10), (hereinafter referred to as ''Tribunal� for short), for enhancement of compensation., on the ground that, a sum of Rs. 6,65,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under different heads with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till payment, as against the claim of Rs. 1,50,20,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased Sri. S. Somashekar, in the road traffic accident is inadequate.

In brief, the facts of the case are:

The appellants are the wife and minor children of the deceased. 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 28.4.2012, deceased was traveling from Bangalore to Hyderabad along with his friends in a Hyundai Accent Car bearing Reg. No. AP. 09. AH. 5058 which was belonging to one of his friend and when they came near Turubaka village, Dummagudam Mandal Khammam District, at that time, the driver of the Lorry Ashok Leyland bearing Reg. No. AP. 37. TB. 8595 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the car. Due to which, deceased and another person died on the spot on account of the injuries sustained in the accident.

It is the further case of the appellants that, deceased was aged about 33 years, hale and healthy prior to the accident, working as Supervisor in V. Lead Solutions and drawing the salary of Rs. 30,000/- 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 and minor children are deprived the love and affection, guidance and security of their father and they also 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. 6,65,000/- under different heads with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till payment.

Being dis-satisfied with the quantum of compensation and the rate of interest 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 Tribunal has erred in not accepting the salary certificate of the deceased produced by the appellants at Ex. P6 while assessing the income of the deceased and what is assessed is on the lower side and is liable to be re-assessed reasonably atleast between ten to twelve thousand per month, on the ground that, deceased was aged about 33 years, working as Supervisor, only earning member in the family and the entire family is depending on his income, after deducting 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses and applying multiplier of ''16�, reasonable compensation may be awarded towards loss of dependency. Further, he submits that, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards conventional heads and the rate of interest is on the lower side and is liable to be enhanced reasonably 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, sought to substantiate 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 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 33 years, hale and healthy prior to the accident, working as a Supervisor in a private limited company and the dependants are his wife and minor children. It is the case of the appellants that deceased was drawing the salary of Rs. 30,000/- per month and only earning member in the family and the untimely death of the deceased has affected the social and economic condition of the family. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 5,000/- per month, which is on the lower side and it needs to be enhanced. Having regard to the age and occupation of the deceased, number of dependants and the year of accident, we re-assess his income at Rs. 10,000/- per month instead of Rs. 5,000/- per month as assessed by the Tribunal. Out of which, if 1/3rd ( Rs. 3,333/-) is deducted towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased, his contribution to the family comes to Rs. 6,667/- per month. The appropriate multiplier applicable is ''16� since deceased was aged about 33 as rightly adopted by the Tribunal. Therefore, we re-determine the loss of dependency at Rs. 12,80,064/- ( Rs. 6,667/- x 12 x 16) instead of Rs. 6,40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal and accordingly, it is awarded.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above and taking into consideration that on account of the untimely death of the deceased, wife has lost her husband and minor children are deprived of the love and affection, guidance and security of their father and following 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 to 3, Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 25,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses. In all, the appellants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 15,05,064/- instead of Rs. 6,65,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal.

Regarding rate of interest, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, 6% interest per annum awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side, since the accident is of the year 2012. In the light of the judgment of Apex Court and this Court, we award the rate of interest at 9% per annum on the enhanced compensation instead of 6% awarded by the Tribunal.

There would be an enhancement of Rs. 8,40,064/- with interest at 9% 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 31/01/2014, passed in MVC No. 7103/2012, by the 14th Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru City (SCCH-10), is hereby modified, awarding a sum of Rs. 8,40,064/- with interest at 9% 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. 8,40,064/- with interest at 9% 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, out of the enhanced compensation of Rs. 8,40,064/-, a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the Fixed Deposit in the name of appellant No. 1, wife of the deceased, in any Nationalized or Scheduled or Grameena Bank, for a period of 15 years, renewable by another 10 years, with liberty reserved to her to withdraw the interest accrued on it, periodically.

A sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- 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 30 years, with liberty reserved to the appellant No. 1, to withdraw the interest accrued on it, periodically, till they attain 21 years for their welfare and from 22 years to 30 years, they are at liberty to withdraw the interest accrued on it periodically.

Remaining sum of Rs. 1,40,064/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of appellant No. 1 immediately.

Draw the award accordingly.