K.N. Aruna Kumari and Others vs Suresh and Others

N.K. Patil, J.—Though this appeal is listed for orders, with the consent of learned Counsel on both sides, the appeal is taken up for final disposal.

This appeal is filed by the claimants against the impugned judgment and award dated 27.12.2012 passed in MVC No. 821/2012 on the file of the Presiding Officer FTC-II & Additional MACT, Mysore, (hereinafter referred to as ''Tribunal'' for brevity) awarding compensation of Rs. 6,13,312/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit on account of death of one S.K. Mahadeva in a road traffic accident. On the ground that the quantum of compensation and rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side, the claimants have presented this appeal.

Brief facts of the case in hand are:

"Appellant No. 1 is the wife and appellant Nos. 2, & 3 are the minor children of the deceased S.K. Mahadeva. They filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, claiming compensation against the respondents on account of untimely death of the deceased S.K. Mahadeva, in the road traffic accident. The deceased was aged 35 years and working as a bill Collector cum clerk in Sabbanakuppe Grama Panchayat Office and drawing a salary of Rs. 4,479/- per month. On 22.5.2012, when the deceased was traveling as a pillion rider in the motor bike bearing No. KA-11/R-876 along with his friend S. Revanna and his minor daughter namely, Shreya, aged about 3 years, on Bangalore-Mysore Road in front of Sachin Hotel at Srirangapatna Town, a KSRTC bus dashed against the motor cycle from behind, due to the rash and negligent driving by its driver. Due to the impact, the deceased and his minor daughter Shreya sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. The claimants contended that the deceased was hale and healthy prior to the accident. He was the only bread winner in the family. Due to the untimely death of deceased, the claimants have lost social, moral and economic security. The wife has lost her soul-mate. The minor children have lost love and affection, inspiration and guidance of their father at the young age. Therefore, the appellants/claimants filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act claiming compensation of Rs. 28,50,000/- against the respondents. 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 record, allowed the claim petition in part awarding a sum of Rs. 6,13,312/- under different heads with interest at 6% 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 Ganapathi C.V. for Sri Sanket M. Yenagi, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri K.G. Aiyappa for Sri P.M. Nawaz, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2.

Learned Counsel for the appellants at the outset submits that the Tribunal has erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards loss of dependency and the same requires enhancement. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, and submits that in the light of the aforesaid judgment, another 50% towards future prospects should be added. Therefore, the income of the deceased may be re-determined and 1/3rd may be deducted as the claimants are three in number and by taking the multiplier ''15'', reasonable compensation may be awarded towards loss of dependency. He further contended that the compensation awarded towards conventional heads is also on the lower side. Therefore, he prays to re-determine the compensation towards loss of dependency and conventional heads by modifying the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

He further submitted that the rate of interest awarded is also on the lower side and in the light of the decisions of the Apex Court and this Court, the rate of interest may be awarded at 9% to 10% from the date of petition till the date of realization.

Per contra, learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent-Corporation inter alia sought to substantiate the impugned judgment and award by contending that the Tribunal has awarded reasonable compensation after due consideration of the oral and documentary evidence available on record and hence the same does not call for interference.

After critical evaluation of the material available on record and considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel for both parties and perusal of the impugned judgment and award, the point that arises for our consideration is:

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

The occurrence of the accident and death of deceased in the accident are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was aged about 35 years and hale and healthy and the only earning member of the family. He was working as a bill collector earning Rs. 4,479/- per month and he used to spend entire amount towards welfare of the family. In the light of the judgment of Sarla Verma, another 50% towards future prospects of the income should be added. Then the monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs. 6,718/- (Rs. 4,479/- + Rs. 2,239/-). If 1/3rd is deducted from Rs. 6,718/- towards personal expenses of the deceased, the net income comes to Rs. 4,479/- (Rs. 6,718/- - Rs. 2,239/-). By applying the multiplier ''16'', the loss of dependency works out to Rs. 8,59,968/- (Rs. 4,479/- x 12 x 16). In the light of catena of judgments of the Apex Court and this Court, we deem it appropriate to award a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 75,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 25,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses. Accordingly, the compensation, in all, works out to Rs. 10,84,968/- as against Rs. 6,13,312/- awarded by the Tribunal. There will be an enhancement of Rs. 4,71,656/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.

For the foregoing reasons, the instant appeal filed by the appellants is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 27.12.2012 passed in MVC No. 821/2012 on the file of the Presiding Officer FTC-II & Additional MACT, Mysore, is hereby modified by awarding Rs. 10,84,968/- as against Rs. 6,13,312/- awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation comes to Rs. 4,71,656/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit, excluding interest for the delayed period of 479 days in filing the appeal.

The second respondent/Corporation is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realization within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Out of enhanced compensation of Rs. 4,71,656/-, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the name of appellant No. 1, in F.D. in any nationalised or scheduled bank for a period of 15 years and renewable for another 10 years, with liberty to withdraw the interest periodically.

A sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- each with proportionate interest shall be invested in F.D. in the name of appellant Nos. 2 & 3 respectively, in any Nationalised or Scheduled or Grameena bank till they attain the age of 30 years. Appellant No. 1 who is the mother of appellant Nos. 2 & 3 is entitled to withdraw the interest periodically till appellant Nos. 2 & 3 attain the age of 21 years, for their welfare & from 22 years to 30 years, appellant Nos. 2 & 3 are entitled to withdraw the interest periodically.

The remaining amount of Rs. 71,656/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of 1st appellant-wife of deceased immediately on deposit by respondent No. 2/Corporation.

Office to draw the award accordingly.