AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil, J.—These two appeals respectively by the Insurer and the Claimant/mother of deceased are directed against the same judgment and award dated 28th August 2014, passed in MVC No. 2182/2011, by the Member, Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-1), (for short, ''Tribunal'').
While the Insurer has filed the appeal for substantial reduction of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 30,13,080/- with 6% interest per annum, awarded in favour of the claimant/mother of deceased is excessive, exorbitant and on the higher side; the claimant/mother of deceased has filed the appeal seeking enhancement of compensation on the ground that the compensation of Rs. 30,13,080/- awarded by Tribunal, on account of the death of her deceased son Ashwin, is inadequate and requires to be redetermined.
The facts in brief are that, the claimant is the mother and sole dependent of the deceased Ashwin. She filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation of Rs. 50.00 lakhs, from the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, contending that, at about 12:00 Noon, on 14-12-2010, when the deceased Ashwin was riding Bajaj Pulsar Motor cycle bearing No. KA-21/J-9556 along with pillion rider on the extreme left side on Bangalore-Hosur (NH-7) Road, Opposite Bharath Petrol Bunk, Guestline Circle, at that time, the driver of Eicher vehicle bearing Registration No. MP-09/T-346/06 came behind from Bangalore towards Hosur Road, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Bajaj Pulsar. As a result, the deceased and pillion rider fell down and sustained injuries and immediately, he was shifted to Sparsha Hospital, Hosur Road, Bommasandra, Bangalore, where he underwent a surgery. Subsequently, unfortunately, he succumbed to the fal injuries on 16-12-2010.
It is the case of the claimant/mother of deceased that, the deceased was aged about 25 years and completed his MBA and working as Junior Officer in Marketing Department in M/s. Titan HMG Paints India Limited and hale and healthy prior to the accident. He was the sole earning member in the family and on account of the untimely death of the deceased, the claimant/mother has lost the love and affection, inspiration apart from social, financial and moral security and therefore, it is her case that she has to be compensated reasonably.
On account of the death of the deceased in the road traffic accident, the claimant/mother of deceased filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- against the owner and Insurer of the offending vehicle. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 28th August, 2014. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, awarding a sum of Rs. 30,13,080/- under different heads, with 6% interest per annum, from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Being highly aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the Insurer is in appeal before this Court, seeking substantial reduction of compensation and not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal, the claimant/mother of deceased is also in appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
We have heard Shri. H.N. Keshava Prashanth, learned counsel appearing for Insurer, Shri. N.R. Naik, learned counsel appearing for Claimant/mother of deceased and gone through the grounds urged in the memorandum of both the appeals carefully and perused the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal.
Shri. H.N. Keshava Prashanth, learned counsel appearing for Insurer vehemently submitted at the outset that the Tribunal has grossly erred in awarding exorbitant compensation of Rs. 28,90,080/- towards loss of dependency, which is disproportionate to the income of the deceased, resulting in miscarriage of justice. He further vehemently submitted that the Tribunal also slipped into an error in taking the age of the deceased for adopting the multiplier, in the case of the death of the bachelor, contrary to the law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, and also the judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited v. Smt. Shanti Pathak and others (Civil Appeal Nos. 2926 & 2927 of 2007 decided on 10/07/2007). Therefore, he submitted that following the aforesaid two judgments, the age of the younger parent may be taken into consideration for adopting the multiplier and compensation awarded towards loss of dependency may be reduced substantially, by modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal.
As against this, it is the submission of Shri. N.R. Naik, learned counsel appearing for claimant/mother of deceased that, the Tribunal committed a grave error and illegality resulting in serious miscarriage of justice, in deducting 50% towards the personal and living expenses of deceased instead of deducting 1/3rd, for the reason that the deceased was the sole earning member in the family and he was contributing the entire sum to the welfare of the family and that the claimant is the sole dependent. He further vehemently submitted that the compensation awarded by Tribunal towards conventional heads is also on the lower side and that since the deceased was hospitalized for survived for three days before succumbing to the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident, the Tribunal ought to have awarded reasonable compensation towards medical expenses, including conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges and other incidental expenses. Therefore, he submitted that reasonable enhancement may be made by modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal.
Further, learned counsel appearing for claimant/mother of deceased vehemently submitted that the rate of interest awarded by Tribunal at 6% p.a. is on the lower side as the accident has occurred during the fag end of the year 2010, i.e. on 14-12-2010. Therefore, in view of the ratio of law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court and this Court in catena of decisions, at least 8% to 10% interest per annum may be awarded in the instant case, to meet the ends of justice and the impugned judgment and award be modified accordingly.
After hearing the rival contentions of the parties, after perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal and after re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, the only point that arise for our consideration in these two appeals is,
"Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal is required to be reduced?"
After perusal of the entire material available on file, it emerges that, occurrence of accident at about 12:00 Noon on 14-12-2012 and the resultant death of the deceased Ashwin on 16-12-2012, in the road traffic accident are not in dispute. It is further not in dispute that the claimant is none other than the mother of the deceased. The deceased was aged about 25 years, completed hi MBA and working as Junior Officer in Marketing Department in M/s. Titan HMG Paints India Limited, getting salary of Rs. 14,958/- per month. But, as per Exs. P9 and P28, Salary Certificates, the salary drawn by the deceased is shown as Rs. 13,380/- per month.
Further, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel appearing for claimant/mother of deceased, as per the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma''s case (supra), 50% is to be added towards future prospects of the deceased.
Admittedly, the deceased was a bachelor and the sole claimant is the mother of deceased, who was aged about 44 years at the time of death of deceased. She was entirely dependent upon the income of the deceased and on account of his untimely and unnatural death, she is totally in financial crisis with no financial, social and moral security. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also following the law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court in catena of decisions including the judgment in the case of Munnalal Jain''s case (AIR 2015 SCW P.3105), (paragraphs 12 and 14), the Tribunal is justified in taking the age of the deceased for adopting the multiplier. Therefore, we hold that the multiplier of ''18'' adopted by Tribunal is just and proper and is accepted.
Further, it can be seen that since the deceased was unmarried, as aforesaid, in the light of the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court in catena of decisions, 50% is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. We have accepted the income of the deceased as Rs. 13,380/- per month. To this, if 50% (i.e. Rs. 6,690/-) is added towards future prospects, as discussed above, the total income works out to Rs. 20,070/- per month. Per annum, it works out to Rs. 2,40,840/- and from this, if a sum of Rs. 2,400/- is deducted towards professional tax, the net income would be Rs. 2,38,440/-. If 50% (i.e. Rs. 1,19,220/-) is deducted from Rs. 2,38,440/- towards his personal and living expenses, the net income would be Rs. 1,19,220/- per annum. Thus, the compensation towards loss of dependency would work out to Rs. 21,45,960/- (i.e. Rs. 1,19,220/- x ''18'') as against Rs. 28,90,080/- awarded by Tribunal.
Further, the Tribunal has erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards conventional heads, except a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- awarded by Tribunal towards loss of love and affection, deprivation of protection, social security, etc. Hence, it does not call for interference.
Further, a sum of Rs. 13,000/- awarded towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- awarded towards funeral and ritual expenses by the Tribunal is on the lower side and no compensation is awarded towards loss of estate. Therefore, having regard to the totality of the case on hand, we award a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 25,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses as against the compensation awarded by Tribunal towards the aforesaid two heads.
Thus the total compensation payable to the claimant works out to Rs. 22,95,960/- as against Rs. 30,13,080/- awarded by the Tribunal. There would be reduction of compensation by a sum of Rs. 7,17,120/-.
As rightly pointed out by learned counsel appearing for claimant/mother of deceased, the rate of interest at 6% per annum awarded by Tribunal is on the lower side, as the accident has occurred on 14-12-2010. Therefore, as per the ratio of law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court and this Court in catena of decisions and also considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it fit and proper to award rate of interest at 8% per annum as against 6% per annum, awarded by Tribunal.
In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the appeal filed by Insurer in M.F.A. No. 7597/2014 is allowed in part and the appeal filed by the claimant/mother of deceased in M.F.A. No. 4659/2015 is hereby dismissed.
The impugned judgment and award dated 28th August 2014, passed in M.V.C. No. 2182/2011, by the Member, Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-1), is hereby modified, reducing the total compensation from Rs. 30,13,080/- awarded by Tribunal, to Rs. 22,95,960/- (reduction being Rs. 7,17,120/-), with interest at 8% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization.
The Insurer is directed to deposit the remaining compensation, after deducting the amount if any already deposited by it, with interest thereon at 8% per annum, within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment.
The apportionment and the manner of disbursement of compensation ordered by Tribunal gets proportionately reduced to the extent of reduction of compensation made by this Court.
The amount deposited by the Insurer in M.F.A. No. 7597/2014 is directed to be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal, forthwith.
Office to draw award, accordingly.