AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal is filed by the claimants against the impugned judgment and award dated 04.06.2014 in MVC No. 5564/2012 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and Member, MACT, Bangalore (SCCH - 18) (hereinafter referred to as ''Tribunal'' for brevity) awarding compensation of Rs. 5,45,000/-, with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation, on account of the death of Saket Choudhary in a road traffic accident. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the appellants have presented this appeal.
Brief facts of the case are:
"Appellants are the parents and the sister of the deceased Saket Choudhary. The appellants contend that deceased Saket Choudhary was aged about 25 years, studying in III year Computer Science Engineering He was hale and healthy prior to the accident. On an ill-fated day, i.e., 18.06.2010, at about 5.20 p.m., when the deceased was going by walk near silk board junction and was crossing the road, at that time, the driver of the BMTC bus bearing registration No. KA 01 FA 1201 drove the same in a high speed, rash and negligent manner and dashed against the pedestrian/deceased. Due to the impact, the deceased fell down, sustained grievous injuries. He was immediately shifted to the Hospital and succumbed to injuries. It is the case of the claimants that they have lost their only son. The claimants/appellants were depending entirely on the deceased. Unfortunately, he could not complete his engineering due to his untimely death in the road traffic accident. He was a distinction student in his entire academic career. Due to the death of the deceased, the claimants have suffered mental pain and agony. Their social and economic condition is affected. The life of the claimants has been jeopardised. The parents are deprived of seeing bright future of their only son. The sister has lost love and affection, inspiration and guidance of the deceased. Therefore, the appellants/claimants were constrained to file a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act claiming compensation of Rs. 30,00,000/- against the respondents on account of the death of their son in road traffic accident. The claim petition filed by the claimants came up for consideration before the Tribunal and the Tribunal in turn after perusal of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, allowed the claim petition in part awarding a sum of Rs. 5,45,000/- under different heads with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Being dissatisfied with the same, the claimants have presented this appeal."
We have heard Sri K.V. Shyama Prasada, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri A.M. Venkatesh, learned Counsel for second respondent.
Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased was the only earning member of the family and the claimants were depending solely on the income of the deceased. He was studying III year Computer Science Engineering and had a bright future. The parents are aged and the father is a senior citizen. After completion of his course, he would have earned between Rs. 18,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- per month. But the Tribunal has taken only Rs. 7,500/- p.m. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have assessed reasonable income of the deceased, by deducting 50% towards his personal expenses and adopting suitable multiplier of T1'' by considering the age of the younger parent - mother and awarded reasonable compensation towards loss of dependency. Further the tribunal has erred in not taking into account the future prospects of the deceased while calculating compensation towards loss of dependency as per the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) ACJ 1298 : AIR 2009 SC 3104 : (2009) CLT 1055 : (2009) 6 JT 495 : (2009) 6 SCALE 129 : (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 5 SCR 1098 : (2009) 5 UJ 2280 : (2009) AIRSCW 4992 : (2009) 3 Supreme 487 . He further submitted that the compensation awarded is liable to be enhanced by modifying the judgment and award of the Tribunal.
Per contra, learned Counsel for the second respondent -Insurer contended that the tribunal has awarded reasonable compensation after due consideration of the oral and documentary evidence available on record and hence, interference by this Court is uncalled for.
After critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record and considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel for both parties and after perusal of the impugned judgment and award, the only point that arise for our consideration is:
"Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?"
The occurrence of the accident and the death of deceased Saket Choudhary are not in dispute. Further, it is also not in dispute that the deceased was aged about 25 years and the claimants are none other than the parents and the sister of the deceased. He was working studying III year Computer Science Engineering The tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 7,500/- p.m. only. The accident is of the year 2010 and the dependents are three in number. The deceased was studying in III year B.E. Therefore, we can safely re-assess the income of the deceased at Rs. 14,000/- p.m. and by deducting 50% towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the income comes to Rs. 7,000/- p.m. (Rs. 14,000/- - Rs. 7,000/-). The appropriate multiplier applicable is ''11'' on the basis of the age of the younger parent/mother. Accordingly, we re-determine compensation payable towards ''loss of dependency'' at Rs. 9,24,000/- (Rs. 7,000/- x 12x11).
Further, the tribunal has erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards conventional heads also. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances, we award Rs. 30,000/-towards loss of love and affection, Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 25,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses to meet the ends of justice.
For the foregoing reasons, the instant appeal filed by the appellants is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 04.06.2014 in MVC No. 5564/2012 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and Member, MACT, Bangalore (SCCH - 18), is hereby modified.
The claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 10,04,000/- as against Rs. 5,45,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation comes to Rs. 4,59,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% p.a., from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit.
R2 - Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount along with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization, within 3 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment and award.
Out of the enhanced compensation of Rs. 4,59,000/-, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in F.D. in the name of appellant No. 2, in any Nationalised or Scheduled or Grameena bank for a period of 10 years and renewable for another 5 years, with liberty to withdraw the interest periodically.
A sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-, with proportionate interest shall be invested in F.D. in the name of appellant No. 1, in any Nationalised or Scheduled or Grameena bank for a period of 5 years and renewable for another 5 years, with liberty to withdraw the interest periodically.
Remaining Rs. 1,59,000/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the appellant Nos. 1 and 2, in equal proportion, immediately on deposit by Re-Insurance Company.
Office to draw the award accordingly.