AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.—Appellants are the legal heirs of one Sadique who died in a road traffic accident while working in a stationery shop in Bangalore as Manager. They complain that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal did not award them adequate compensation. According to them, the multiplicand adopted by the Tribunal for determining dependency compensation is low and Ext.A8 reflecting a monthly income of Rs. 6000/- should have been accepted as the same was properly proved through PW-2, its author. They complain that compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads is quite inadequate. We have heard the submissions of Sri. P.M. Pareeth, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. A.A. Mohammed Nazir, learned standing counsel for the Insurance Company. Sri. Pareeth would address submissions before us based on the various grounds raised. He drew our attention to Ext.A5 series of medical bills. He submitted that the learned Tribunal marked all these medical bills without any objection from the side of the Insurance Company. These medical bills have been referred to in the award. However, obviously by an omission the learned Tribunal did not award compensation on the basis of these bills. The total value of the bills comes to Rs. 43,735/-. The bill amount covered by these medical bills should be awarded towards medical expenses. He argued that the compensation claimed under various heads should have been allowed in full. Per contra Mr. A.A. Mohammed Nazir, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Tribunal was justified in discarding Ext.A8. It is true that PW-2 gave oral evidence. But in his evidence it is stated that he has in his custody the supporting documents which will show that the deceased was being paid every month at the rate of Rs. 6000/-. Though he stated so, he never produced the documents. This is why the learned Tribunal was not inclined to accept A8 and adopted a notional income. When we informed Mr. Nazir of our intention to adopt a multiplicand of Rs. 3000/- X 12, Mr. Nazir submitted if that be so, deductions to be made towards personal expenses shall be 50% as Bangalore is a very expensive city and the deceased would have been compelled to expend 50% of his earnings towards his own personal expenditure. According to Mr. Nazir, the Tribunal has awarded reasonable compensation and there is no warrant for interference.
We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We have very carefully gone through the impugned award. We have made appraisal of the evidence, especially, A5 series of medical bills.
Having apprised the medical bills we are convinced that all except the last one against payment of a sum of Rs. 14,000/- to Dr. S.C. Bantwal, Consulting Neuro Surgeon of the hospital where the deceased was treated and died can be safely relied on. We are not inclined to rely on the receipt issued by Dr. S.C. Bantwal for the reason that the same is issued much after the demise of the deceased. According to us, Ext.A5 series can be relied on and it can be found that a sum of Rs. 29,735/- was expended towards treatment of the deceased. We award to the appellant Rs. 29.735/- towards medical expenses. We shall now consider the question as to the correct amount to be paid to the appellants towards compensation for dependency. According to us, the monthly income of Rs. 2000/- adopted by the learned Tribunal is too low. There is every justification for adopting the monthly income at Rs. 3000/-. Despite very persuasive submissions from the side of Mr. Nazir we don''t find justification for deducting anything more than one-third towards personal expenditure of the deceased. We find force in the submission of Mr. Nazir that the Tribunal has adopted a high multiplier of 17 and that the correct multiplier to be adopted is 16. Adopting correct multiplier and the multiplicand of Rs. 3000/-, when dependency compensation is recalculated, it will be seen that the appellants are eligible for further amount of Rs. 1,12,000/- towards dependency compensation. The deceased was in the hospital for 20 days before he died. We are sure that during these 20 days he has suffered excruciating pain and mental agony. We award to the appellants Rs. 15,000/- more towards pain and suffering. No amount has been awarded towards loss of estate. Therefore we award to the appellant Rs. 5000/- towards loss of estate. The first appellant widow was only 21 years. Sri. Pareeth, learned counsel for the appellant asserted before us that considering the interest of the child the first appellant remains unmarried even now. We are of the view that the amount presently awarded towards loss of consortium is inadequate. We award to the appellants Rs. 10,000/- more towards loss of consortium. We are of the view that the amount presently awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of love and affection for the child which was only six months is quite inadequate. We award to the appellants a sum of Rs. 15,000/- more towards loss of love and affection. No separate compensation is seen awarded towards funeral expenses. We award to the appellant Rs. 5000/- towards funeral expenses. We find inadequacy in the compensation awarded towards bystander''s expenses. We award to the appellants Rs. 4000/- more towards bystander''s charges. Thus in all we award to the appellants a total amount of Rs. 1,95,735/-. This amount will carry interest at the same rate awarded by the Tribunal.
The appeal is allowed as above. No costs.