Lakshmi Devi and Others vs Lokesh and Others

S. Abdul Nazeer, J.—This appeal by the claimants is directed against the judgment and award in MVC No. 1501/2011 dated 15.6.2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-IX, Bellary,.

The first appellant is the wife of one Thammaiah and appellant Nos. 2 to 5 are their children. 6th appellant is the mother of Thammaiah. Thammaiah died in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 31.8.2011. Therefore, the claimants filed MVC No. 1501/2011 seeking compensation in a total sum of Rs. 27,20,000/-. The respondent-Insurance Company filed its written statement opposing the claim petition. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed the following issues:

"1. Whether the petitioners prove that accident was due to rash and negligent driving by the respondent No. 1 being the driver of TATA ACE luggage auto bearing Reg. No. KA-16/A-8067, which took place on 31.8.2011 at about 3.45 p.m. on Rayadurga Somalapur road as a result Thammaiah @ Upparallappa Thammaiah sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to injuries on the spot?

Whether respondent No. 3 proves that, driver of autorickshaw was not holding valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident?

Whether the respondent No. 3 proves that luggage auto being goods carrying commercial vehicle was plied with out having permit in violation of the policy conditions?

Whether the petitioners prove that they are entitled to get compensation, if so, what is its quantum and from whom?

What award or order?"

Claimant No. 1 was examined as P.W. 1 and documents Ex. P1 to Ex. P11 were marked in her evidence. The respondent-Insurance Company has not let in any evidence. However, a copy of the policy of the insurance was marked by consent of the parties as Ex. R1. The Tribunal on appreciation of the materials on record, has answered issue Nos. 1 and 2 in the affirmative. It has granted a total compensation of Rs. 8,33,500/-.

Learned Counsel for the appellant/claimants submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate. It is argued that the deceased was doing agriculture and was earning more than Rs. 1,50,000/- per annum. He was also doing milk vending business and earning Rs. 3,500/- per month. The Tribunal has notionally taken his income at Rs. 6,000/- per month. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards loss of future prospects. The award of compensation towards loss of love and affection, towards loss of consortium and towards conventional expenses is on a lower side.

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submits that the claimants have not produced any materials to substantiate the income of the deceased. It is argued that the deceased was not a Government servant nor the claimants have established that the deceased was self-employed or that he had any permanent source of income. Therefore, the claimants are not entitled for any compensation towards loss of future prospects. The compensation awarded under all other heads is just and reasonable.

We have carefully considered the arguments of the learned Counsel made at the Bar and perused the materials placed on record.

There is no dispute as to the occurrence of the accident and the liability of the Insurance Company to pay the compensation. Having regard to the contentions urged, the only question for consideration is whether the award of compensation by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?

P.W. 1 in her evidence has stated that the deceased was doing agriculture and also milk vending business and that he was getting an agricultural income of Rs. 1,50,000/- per annum and earning Rs. 3,500/- from his milk vending business. However, no materials have been produced to substantiate this contention. The claimants have also not produced any materials to show that the deceased had any permanent source of income or that he was self-employed. In the absence of any documentary evidence in relation to his income, the Tribunal has notionally fixed the income of the deceased at Rs. 6,000/- per month. The accident had occurred on 31.8.2011. The deceased was aged 39 years at the time of the accident. We are of the view that it is just and proper to fix his income at Rs. 7,000/- per month. As noticed above, no materials have been produced to show that the deceased had any permanent source of income or that he was self-employed. Therefore, it is not proper to award compensation towards loss of future prospects. By taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 7,000/- per month after deducing 1/4th of the income towards his personal expenses and with the application of multiplier 14, the compensation payable towards loss of dependency comes to Rs. 8,82,000/-.

We are also of the view that the first claimant is entitled for Rs. 1 lakh towards loss of consortium and the other claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- each (Rs. 1,25,000/-) towards loss of love and affection. A sum of Rs. 25,000/- is awarded towards transportation and funeral expenses. The Tribunal has rightly awarded a sum of Rs. 40,000/- towards compensation for loss of two Jercy cows.

Thus, the compensation payable to the claimant is reassessed as under:

The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 8,33,500/- which has to be deducted from the aforesaid amount and the balance of compensation payable to the claimants is Rs. 3,38,500/-. The said sum of Rs. 3,38,500/- shall carry interest at 6% per annum.

In the result, the appeal succeeds and it is accordingly allowed in part. The second respondent - Insurance company is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 3,38,500/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the application till the date of deposit in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The first claimant is permitted to withdraw the amount on its deposit. No costs.