AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.L. Manjunath, J.—These two appeals arise out of the judgment and award passed in MVC No. 108 of 2007 dated 30-4-2010 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal & Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Arasikere. While MFA 7123 of 2010 is filed by the claimants in the claim petition seeking for enhancement of compensation, MFA No. 6927 of 2010 is filed by the insurance company challenging the liability saddled on it by the tribunal. Therefore, these appeals are heard together and disposed of.
The claimants are the legal heirs of one Basavaraj S Police Patil, who was aged 36 years and working as junior engineer in panchayatraj engineering sub-division at Arasikere in Hassan district. According to the claimants, the deceased was working on contract basis since 1992 and after completion of 10 years of such service, as per the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, the services of the deceased were required to be regularized and that his case was under active consideration of the department. According to them, if the services of the deceased were regularized, he would have drawn more than Rs. 10,000/- per month as salary as on the date of accident.
According to the claimants, on 13-1-2007 at about 11 pm, when the deceased was travelling in the motorcycle bearing registration No. KA-18 K-5363 as a pillion rider from Arasikere to Kadur, near Hosakallanayakanahalli gate, goods vehicle bearing registration No. MH-37 B-534 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased. Due to the impact of the accident, he sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. Therefore, the claim petition was filed.
The owner of the goods vehicle did not contest the case. The insurance company contested the claim petition, contending that the driver of the goods vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence and he was having a licence only to drive a light motor vehicle and not a goods vehicle. Therefore, the insurance company contended that the petition against the insurance company has to be dismissed.
In order to prove their respective contentions, on behalf of the claimants, the widow of deceased was examined as PW1 and also examined PW2 to prove the employment of the deceased. The claimants have relied upon Ex. P1 to 14. On behalf of the insurance company, one Abdul Waheed Khan was examined as RW1 and he relied upon Ex. R1, a copy of the insurance policy.
The tribunal, after considering the entire evidence let in by the parties, came to the conclusion that the driver of the goods vehicle had a valid driving licence to drive light goods vehicle and that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the goods vehicle by its driver. The tribunal, considering the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,545/- per month, awarded a sum of Rs. 5,45,400/- under the head loss of dependency and a sum of Rs. 80,000/- has been awarded under conventional heads and thus in all a sum of Rs. 6,25,400/- was awarded as compensation. The tribunal fixed the liability on the insurance company.
Being aggrieved by the findings of the tribunal on the question of liability, the insurance company has filed MFA No. 6927 of 2010 and the claimants have filed MFA No. 7123 of 2010, contending that the tribunal has committed an error in not considering the income of the deceased properly and also not awarding compensation considering the future prospects of the deceased and also contending that the quantum of compensation awarded under the conventional heads is also on the lower side.
The main contention of Sri A M Venkatesh, learned counsel for the insurance company, is that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence to drive a goods vehicle. According to him, there is no endorsement attached to the driving licence and therefore the liability fastened on it has to be set aside by this court.
We have examined the driving licence produced by the claimants. The said driving licence is valid from 2000, much prior to the amendment to the Rules. We have also seen that there is an endorsement in the driving licence, enabling the holder of the licence to drive a transport vehicle also. Ex. P11 reveals that the licence was issued on 20-1-2000 and the same is valid up to 19-1-2020. Thereafter, a separate endorsement is also made in the licence, authorizing the driver to drive transport vehicle. Therefore, considering the fact that the driving licence was issued prior to the amendment to the Rules, there is no necessity to have a separate endorsement allowing the driver to drive a transport vehicle. Even otherwise, the driving licence had an endorsement to this effect. Thus, viewed from any angle, the contention of the learned counsel for the insurance company has to be rejected. Accordingly, we hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the insurance company.
In so far as the claimants'' appeal is concerned, admittedly, the deceased was working as a junior engineer in the panchayatraj engineering department, which is one of the wings of the state government. He was appointed in the year 1992. Pursuant to the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, after ten years of such temporary service, the services of such employees are to be regularized. On contract basis, the deceased was getting Rs. 4,545/- at the time of accident in the year 2007. Even if we consider that his services were to be regularized, his monthly income would not have been less than Rs. 15,000/-. Be that as it may, even if consider a person''s income as a coolie, it would be not less than Rs. 10,000/- per month. Therefore, we are of the view that the case of the claimants in regard to the income of the deceased has not been properly considered by the tribunal. Hence, we take the notional income of the deceased at Rs. 10,000/- per month. In addition, the claimants are entitled to 50% of the notional income we have determined towards future prospects, since the deceased was a government employee. Therefore, the notional income has to be taken as Rs. 15,000/- per month and one-third thereof has to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased. Thus, the loss of dependency would be Rs. 10,000/- per month or Rs. 1,20,000/- per annum. Since the deceased was aged 36 years, we have to apply the multiplier of 15. Accordingly, we award a sum of Rs. 18,00,000/- under the head of loss of dependency. In addition, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- under the conventional heads. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/-
In the result, MFA No. 7123 of 2010 is allowed in part and the compensation is enhanced from Rs. 6,25,400/- to Rs. 20,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition. Out of the total compensation, a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- with interest accrued thereon shall be apportioned to the second claimant Smt. Vijayalakshmi, the widow of the deceased. Out of the said Rs. 15,00,000/- a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- with accrued interest shall be kept in a fixed deposit in a nationalized bank in the name of the second claimant for a period of five years. The remaining amount with accrued interest shall be deposited in a fixed deposit in a nationalized bank in the name of first claimant Kumari Swetha i.e. daughter of the deceased, till her attaining the age of 18 years.
MFA No. 6927 of 2010 is dismissed.
The registry is directed to transmit the amount in deposit, if any, and records to the tribunal forthwith.