Lalitha vs Managing Director, BMTC Central Offices

N. K. Patil, J. - This appeal by the appellants-claimants is directed against the impugned-judgment and award dated 20-10-2014, passed in MVC No. 2517/2012, by the Judge, Court of Small Causes & XXVIACMM, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-09), (hereinafter referred to as ''Tribunal'' for short), for enhancement of compensation, on the ground that, a sum of Rs. 92,00,(XXV-awarded by the Tribunal under different heads with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till payment, as against the claim Rs. 2, 00, 00,000/- on account of the death of the deceased Sri. M. S. Sridhar, in the road traffic accident is inadequate.

In brief, the facts of the case are :

Appellants are the wife, minor children and mother of the deceased. They filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation against the respondents, on account of the death of the deceased in the road traffic accident, contending that, on 10-2-2012 at about 12.15 p.m. deceased was going as a pillion rider in motor bike bearing Reg. No. KA.01.EC.8894 on Bannerghatta Main Road and when they came near Shipa junction, Bangalore, at that time, driver of BMTC Volvo bus bearing Reg. No. KA.01.FA.2362 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the bike in which deceased was going after colluding with three other vehicles, due to which, deceased fell down and died at the spot. It is the further case of the appellants that, deceased was aged about 44 years, hale and healthy prior to the accident, working as Engineer (Senior Team Leader) in M/s. Agila Software Pvt. Ltd., and earning Rs. 91,000/- per month and looking after the welfare of the family by contributing his entire earnings to the family.

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 file, has allowed the claim petition in part and awarded the compensation of Rs. 92,00,000/-under different heads with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization.

Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation and the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants have presented this appeal.

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned counsel for respondent-Corporation.

The submission of the learned counsel Sri. M. Anil Kumar, appearing for the appellants, at the outset is that, the Tribunal has erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards loss of dependency, towards conventional heads and the rate of interest and what is awarded is inadequate and it requires to be enhanced reasonably. To substantiate the said submission, he has pointed out and submitted placing reliance on Exs. P7, P13 and P. 16 that, deceased was aged about 44 years, working as Senior Team Leader in M/s. Agila Specialities Pvt. Ltd. and drawing the salary of Rs. 95,380/- per month and he has filed his income tax teturns. Therefore, he submitted that Tribunal has erred in not taking the entire income of the deceased at the time of calculating loss of dependency. Further, he submits that on account of his untimely death, wife has lost her companion at her young age, minor children are deprived of the love and affection, guidance and security of their father and mother has lost love and affection and guidance of her son and this aspect of the matter has not been considered or appreciated by the Tribunal while awarding compensation towards conventional heads and what is awarded is inadequate and it is liable to be enhanced reasonably. Further he submits that the rate of interest awarded at 6% p.a. is on the lower side and is liable to be awarded between 9 to 10% in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court as the accident is of the year 2012. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified.

As against this, learned counsel Sri. D. Vijaya Kumar, appearing for respondent-Corporation, inter-alia, contended and substantiated that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file. To substantiate the said submission, he submitted that wife of the deceased is not depending on the income of the deceased, on the ground that, in her cross-examination, she has admitted that she is a B.E. Graduate and working in KPTCL as Assistant Engineer from last 15 years. Taking the totality of the case in hand, the Corporation has not preferred an appeal or cross-objection and therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on account of the death of the deceased is just and proper and it does not call for interference, nor the appellants have made out any good grounds to entertain the relief sought in this appeal.

After hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties and after careful perusal of the material available on record at threadbare, including the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, it emerges that, occurrence of the accident and the resultant dead) of the deceased Sri. M. S. Sridhar is not m dispute. It is also not in dispute that, appellants are the wife, minor children and mother of the deceased. After microscopic evaluation of the evidence available on record, it emerges that, in the cross-examination, wife of the deceased has admitted that she is a B.E. Graduate, working as Assistant Engineer in KPTCL from 15 years and therefore, she is not dependent on income of the deceased and the dependants are two minor children and mother only. Further, the tribunal, considering Ex. P13-IT returns submitted by the deceased prior to his death, has assessed the annual income of the deceased at Rs. 6,70,094/- p.a., after adding another 30% towards future prospects in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma''s case reported in 2009 ACJ 1289, has assessed his total annual income at Rs. 8,71,123/-per annum, after deducting �th towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and applying multiplier of ''14'' since deceased was aged about 44 years, has justified in awarding a sum of Rs. 91,47,000/- towards loss of dependency. Further, the Tribunal has also justified in awarding Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs. 15,000/- towards transportation of dead body, funeral and obsequies, Rs. 13,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/-towards loss of consortium and in all Rs. 92,00,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. The said compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of dependency, towards conventional heads and the rate of interest after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file is just and reasonable and it does not call for interference. Therefore, we do not find any injustice as such caused to the appellants nor the said compensation is unreasonable Taking all these factors into consideration, the appeal filed by the appellants is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits and accordingly, it is dismissed.

Draw the award accordingly.