Jayamma and Others vs Saravanan G. and Others

N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the appellants-claimants is directed against the impugned common judgment and award dated 05/02/2013, passed in MVC No. 375/2011, by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-VI, Chitradurga, (hereinafter referred to as ''Tribunal'' for short), for enhancement of compensation, on the ground that, a sum of Rs. 2,84,000/- 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. 20,00,000/- on account of the death of the deceased Sri. Lingaraju @ Lingesh, in the road traffic accident is inadequate.

In brief, the facts of the case are:

"The appellants are the mother and handicapped brother 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 29.3.2011 at about 6.00 p.m. deceased along with one Harish were supplying water to the roadside newly plants through trailer tanker on the left side of the road, at that time, the driver of the Lorry bearing Reg. No. TN.23.AH.0942 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against the tractor trailer. As a result, one Harish sustained severe injuries and Lingaraju died at the spot." 3. It is the further case of the appellants that, deceased was aged about 19 years, hale and healthy prior to the accident, working as a coolie to supply water under contractor and also doing agricultural work and used to earn Rs. 2/- lakhs from agricultural work and Rs. 8,000/- per month by doing water supply work, and looking after the welfare of the family by contributing his entire earnings to the family as he was the only earning member in the family. Due to his untimely death, appellants have 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. 2,84,000/- under different heads with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation 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 income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 4,000/- per month is on the lower side and is liable to be enhanced, on the ground that, deceased was the only earning member of the family, doing agricultural work and also supplying water under contractor and the dependants are his mother and handicapped brother and therefore, his income may be reassessed reasonably and 1/3rd should be deducted towards his personal expenses since the mother and handicapped brother are the dependants and he was the only earning member in the family and the age of the deceased should be taken for adopting proper multiplier instead of the age of the mother of the deceased as done by the Tribunal Further, he submits that, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards conventional heads and the rate of interest awarded at 6% p.a., is on the lower side and it is liable to be enhanced. 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, 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 and therefore, it does not call for interference. He further submits that the appellants have not produced any credible documents to show that the appellant No. 2 is the physically handicapped person and therefore, the mother is the only dependent and therefore, the Tribunal has justified in deducting 50% towards the personal expenses of the deceased and adopting multiplier of ''11'' taking the age of the mother of the deceased while awarding loss of dependency and hence, there is no substance in the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the appellants that 1/3rd has to be deducted and the age of the deceased should be considered for adopting multiplier in view of the well settled law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court and it is liable to be rejected.

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?" 10. The occurrence of the accident and the resultant death of the deceased are not in dispute. The dependants are the mother and handicapped brother of the deceased. It is the case of the appellants that deceased was aged about 19 years, hale and healthy prior to the accident, doing agricultural work and also supplying water under contractor and on account of his untimely death, appellants have suffered financial loss as he was the only earning member in the family apart from mental shock and agony. Further, it emerges that, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,000/- per month, which is on the lower side and it needs to be enhanced. Having regard to the age and occupation of the deceased and the year of accident, we re-assess his income at Rs. 6,500/- per month instead of Rs. 4,000/- per month as assessed by the Tribunal. Out of which, 1/3rd should be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, for the reason that, he was the only earning member in the family and the entire family was depending on his income as the appellant No. 2 is handicapped person and appellant No. 1, mother has to look after the welfare of appellant No. 2 and on account of the untimely death of the deceased, financial distress arises in the family. If 1/3rd ( Rs. 2,166/-) is deducted out of Rs. 6,500/- per month towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, his net income comes to Rs. 4,334/- per month. In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verrma''s case reported in 2009 ACJ 1298, the age of the mother of the deceased is to be taken to adopt proper multiplier since he was a bachelor. The proper multiplier applicable is ''11'' since the mother of the deceased was aged about 55 years as rightly adopted by the Tribunal and we accept the same. Therefore, we re-determine the loss of dependency at Rs. 5,72,088/- ( Rs. 4,334/- x 12 x 11) instead of Rs. 2,64,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal and accordingly, it is awarded.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we award a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 25,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses instead of Rs. 20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

Regarding rate of interest is concerned, 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 2010. 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.

In all, the appellants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 6,42,088/- instead of Rs. 2,84,000/-. There would be an enhancement of Rs. 3,58,088/- 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 common judgment and award dated 05/02/2013, passed in MVC No. 375/2011, by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-VI, Chitradurga, is hereby modified, awarding a sum of Rs. 3,58,088/- with interest at 9% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization, in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

The 2nd respondent-Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 3,58,088/- 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 deposit by the Insurer, out of the enhanced compensation of Rs. 3,58,088/-, a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the Fixed Deposit, in the name of the appellant No. 1, in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank, for a period of 10 years and renewable by another 05 years, with liberty reserved to the appellant No. 1 to withdraw the interest accrued on it, periodically.

The remaining sum of Rs. 1,08,088/- with interest shall be released in favour of the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 in equal proportion immediately.

Draw the award, accordingly.