Kamalabai and Others vs Maqbool Ahammed and Others

N.K. Patil, J.—This is claimants'' appeal filed against the impugned judgment and award dated 8th December 2014 passed in MVC No. 234/2012 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ramanagara (hereinafter referred to as ''Tribunal'' for short), for enhancement of compensation.

The Tribunal by its judgment and award has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,82,000/- under different heads with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, as against the claim of the claimants for a sum of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- on account of death of the deceased late Sri Lakshmana Naik, in the road traffic accident.

In brief, the facts of the case are:

The wife of the deceased, reported to be died during the pendency of the claim petition before the Jurisdictional Tribunal and her LRs, i.e. 1st, 2nd and 3rd appellants are children of the deceased and they have filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of M.V. Act, claiming, contending that, on 2.07.2012 at about 2.00 p.m. when the deceased - Lakshmana Naik, was going on Kanakapur-Ramanagara road, near a temple on his motorcycle, a lorry bearing No. KA-06-B-8828 came from behind at a high speed and dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased. Due to the impact Lakhmana Naik fell down from the vehicle and sustained injuries all over his body and died at the spot. Due to the death of the deceased, the appellants have suffered mental agony and they have spent huge amount towards transportation of the dead body, funeral and obsequies of the deceased.

Due to his untimely death, they filed a claim petition and 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 record, has allowed the claim petition in part and awarded the compensation of Rs. 1,82,000/- under different heads with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants have presented this appeal, for enhancement of compensation.

The submission of Sri Raju, learned counsel appearing for M/s. S. Raju Associates, for the appellants at the outset is that, the Tribunal has failed to assess the just and reasonable income of the deceased and the income assessed is on the lower side. The wife of the deceased also died leaving behind the children''s as the LRs of both the deceased persons. The deceased-Lakshmana Naik was aged about 57 years and doing agriculture and retired Bank Manager and getting an income of Rs. 75,000/- per month, therefore the income of the deceased may be re-assessed between Rs. 6,500/- and Rs. 7,000/- p.m. Out of it, 1/4th may be deducted towards personal expenses, as the wife of the deceased was alive as an the date of filing and applying appropriate multiplier ''9'' taking the age of the deceased, reasonable compensation may be awarded towards loss of dependency. Due to his untimely death, claimants have lost their only breadwinner and facing great mental shock and monetary loss. Further he submitted that the Tribunal erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards conventional heads and also submitted that the rate of interest awarded at 6% per annum is also on the lower side since the accident is of the year 2012 and the same may be enhanced from 9% to 10% per annum. Therefore, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be modified.

Per contra, the 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. It is passed after considering the oral and documentary evidence and interference by this Court is not called for.

After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and on perusal of the material available on record, including the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the only point that arises for consideration is:

"Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?"

It is not in dispute that the deceased died in the road traffic accident. Further it is stated that, the deceased was aged about 54 years at the time of accident, hale and healthy and looking after the welfare of the appellants and a retired bank manager and also he was doing agriculture and getting an income of Rs. 75,000/- p.m. Tribunal after critical evaluation of oral and documentary evidence available on file as assessed the age of the deceased as 57 years as per Ex. P11. The same is accepted. He had taken VRS and doing agricultural work. But the appellants have not produced any credible documents to establish the same, except oral evidence of PWs. 1 and 2. PW 1 has deposed that the deceased was dismissed from the bank for miss-managing the funds. The appellants have not produced any documents to show what was the pension that the deceased was getting at the time of his death. The accident occurred on 2.07.2012.

It should be seen that the income from agriculture continuous to come even in the absence of the deceased. But since the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal is on lower side, having regard to the age, avocation and year of accident, we can safely re-assess the income at Rs. 6,500/- per month, to meet the ends of justice. The wife of the deceased also died during the pendency of the claim petition before the Tribunal leaving behind the children as the LRs of the deceased-Lakshmana Naik and also Kamalabai and all the childrens are major. Therefore, out of the income of the deceased, if 1/3rd is deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased, as the wife of the deceased was alive at the time of accident and depending upon the deceased, it comes to Rs. 4,334/-. In the light of the decision in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, , the appropriate multiplier applicable for the age of deceased being 57 years is ''9'', taking the age of the deceased as 57 years. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled towards loss of dependency at Rs. 4,68,072/- (Rs. 4,334/- x 12 x 9).

However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case that the children have lost their future security, love and affection, we deem it fit to award Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs. 75,000/- towards loss of love and affection at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- to each appellant and Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral and transportation expenses. In all, the claimants are entitled for Rs. 5,93,072/- as against Rs. 1,82,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants, the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 6% p.a. is on the lower side. As the accident has occurred in the year 2012, in the light of catena of Judgments, we deem it fit to award 9% interest per annum on enhanced compensation.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal dated 8th December 2014 in MVC No. 234/2012 is hereby modified. The total compensation payable comes to Rs. 5,93,072/- as against Rs. 1,82,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. There will be an enhancement of Rs. 4,11,072/- with 9% interest per annum.

The respondent No. 2 - Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and award.

Out of the enhanced compensation, 50% with proportionate interest shall be invested in the Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank, in the names of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd appellants in equal proportion, for a period of five years and renewable for another five years, with liberty to them to withdraw the interest accrued on it periodically in equal proportion.

The remaining 50% with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd appellants, in equal proportion, immediately, on deposit by the 2nd respondent-insurer.

Draw the award, accordingly.