K.B. Rajanna and Others vs Harisha and Others

N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the claimants is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 7th October 2014 passed in MVC No. 187/2012 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and Principal Senior Civil Judge and C.J.M, at 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. 4,29,600/-under different heads after deducting 20% towards contributory negligence on the part of the deceased with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, on account of the death of the deceased late Sri Lokesh, in the road traffic accident.

In brief, the facts of the case are:

"The 1st and 2nd appellants are parents of the deceased and 3rd appellant is sister of the deceased and they have filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation on account of the death of the deceased in the road traffic accident, contending that, the deceased by name Sri. Lokesh, on 15.01.2012 at about 7.00 a.m while proceeding on his Hero Honda passion Motor Cycle bearing No. KA-42/K-5334 on the left side of the B.M Road near Billakempanahalli, Bangla Gate, at that time, the driver of the lorry bearing Reg. No. KA-01/AA-0352 drove the same in rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and dashed against the motor cycle of deceased. As a result of which, the wheels of the lorry ran over both the legs of deceased and due to the impact deceased sustained severe injuries on his body and immediately deceased was taken to B.G.S Hospital Global Hospital, Bangalore, where treatment was provided, but unfortunately the deceased died on the same day at about 8.00 p.m at B.G.S Hospital. Due to the death of the deceased, the appellants have suffered mental agony and they have spent Rs. 2,00,000/- towards medicine, treatment, transportation of the dead body, funeral and obsequies of the deceased. It is the further case of the appellants that, the deceased was aged about 29 years at the time of accident, hale and healthy and doing cooking contractor work and he used to earn Rs. 15,000/- per month and contributing the same to the family and looking after the welfare of the family and due to his untimely death, they suffered socially and economically. 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. 4,29,600/- under different heads with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of deposit after deducting 50% towards personal expenses of deceased as he was bachelor and 20% towards contributory negligence fixed on the part of the deceased. Not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, and also contributory negligence fixed, the appellants have presented this appeal, for enhancement of compensation."

The submission of Sri K. Shantharaj, learned counsel appearing for the appellants is that, the Tribunal has failed to assess the just and reasonable income of the deceased and the income assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side since the accident has occurred on 15.1.2012 Tribunal has not assessed the income of the deceased properly and out of it 50% is deducted towards personal expenses and appropriate multiplier adopted is ''17''. The Tribunal has erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards injury, pain and suffering, medical expenses, conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges, loss of amenities, comfort and happiness and loss of future income. Further, the Tribunal has erred in fixing 20% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased which is contrary to the oral and documentary evidence and there is no negligence on the part of the deceased. Further he submitted, in the light of judgments of Apex Court in case of Reshma Kumari and Others Vs. Madan Mohan and Another, and Munnalal Jam v. Vipin Kumar Sharma in CA 4497/2015 dated 15.5.2015 age of the deceased may be considered for applying the multiplier and the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, may be modified by awarding just and reasonable compensation under all heads, fixing entire negligence on the part of the driver.

Per contra, Sri. B. Pradeep, learned counsel appearing for R2 inter alia contended and substantiated that, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and after considering the oral and documentary evidence and interference by this Court is not called for. He submitted the Tribunal is justified in awarding compensation by assigning cogent reasons at para-10 of its judgment, 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 arise 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 not in dispute that, the deceased was aged about 29 years at the time of accident, hale and healthy and looking after the welfare of the appellants. The income of the deceased is stated to be Rs. 15,000/- p.m. The accident has occurred on 15.1.2012 and by profession he was doing cooking contractor work. Due to his un-timely death, claimants have lost their only breadwinner and facing great mental shock and monetary loss. The claimants are none other than the parents and sister of the deceased, who have lost their future security due to his untimely death. Taking all these aspects into consideration, the appellants have made out a case for enhancement of reasonable compensation under different heads. Further, the income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal is just and proper. Having regard to the age, avocation and year of accident, we accept the income at Rs. 8,000/-p.m to meet the ends of justice and Out of it, if 50% is deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased, it comes to Rs. 4,000/- in the light of the decisions of Apex Court in case of Reshma Kumari and Others Vs. Madan Mohan and Another, and Munnalal Jam v. Vipin Kumar Sharma in CA 4497/2015 dated 15.5.2015, the appropriate multiplier applicable is 17 considering the age of the deceased. Accordingly, the appellants are entitled towards loss of dependency at Rs. 8,16,000/- (Rs. 4,000/-x12x17).

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case that, the parents lost their son and sister has lost her brother''s love and affection and future security and since sister is unmarried, we deem it fit to award Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs. 75,000/-towards loss of love and affection, and Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral and transportation expenses. However, the Tribunal has rightly awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards Medical Expenses. Therefore, interference by this Court is not called for. In all, the claimants are entitled for Rs. 9,91,000/-.

Regarding contributory negligence fixed by the Tribunal at 20% on the part of the deceased, it can be seen that the Tribunal after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, particularly Ex. P6 sketch has fixed contributory negligence at 20% on the part of the deceased. The reasoning given by the Tribunal at Para-10 of its judgment in respect of issue No. 1 is just and proper as the same is passed on the basis of oral and documentary evidence available on file. Hence interference by this Court is not called for and we uphold the contributory negligence fixed on the part of the deceased at 20%.

Therefore from the total amount Rs. 9,91,000/-, if 20% towards contributory negligence on the part of the deceased is deducted, it comes to Rs. 7,92,800/- as against Rs. 4,29,600/-awarded by the Tribunal.

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 7th October 2014 in MVC No. 187/2012 is hereby modified. The total compensation payable comes to Rs. 7,92,800/- as against Rs. 4,29,600/- awarded by the Tribunal. There will be an enhancement of Rs. 3,63,200/- with 9% interest per annum.

The 2nd respondent is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 3,63,200/- 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.

Out of the enhanced compensation of Rs. 3,63,200/- a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized/Scheduled/Gramena Bank, in the name of the 1st and 2nd appellants for a period of five years and renewable for another five years, with liberty to them to withdraw the periodical interest accrued on it.

The remaining Rs. 63,200/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of 1st and 2nd appellants immediately, on deposit by the Insurer.

Draw the award, accordingly.