Laxman and Others vs Palanisamy V. and Others

A.S. Pachhapure, J.

Though the matters are posted for hearing on I.A., with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, they are taken up for final disposal.

The appellants dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the death of Mahadevi and the injuries to her husband in a motor vehicle accident have filed these appeals, seeking enhancement.

The facts reveal that on 07.08.2012, Laxman (the injured) and Mahadevi (the deceased) were proceeding on their motorcycle on NH-13 and an accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No. TN-36/W-1135. Thereby, Mahadevi sustained severe injuries and died, whereas her husband sustained grievous injuries and suffered disability. In the circumstances, the injured husband, the children and parents of the deceased made a claim for compensation in MVC No. 1451/2012, whereas in MVC No. 1755/2012, the injured sought for award of the compensation.

Both the cases were clubbed and common evidence was recorded.

The Tribunal having held that the driver of the lorry was negligent in the occurrence of the accident, granted a sum of Rs. 6,47,000/- for the death of Mahadevi in MVC No. 1451/2012 and a sum of Rs. 3,29,300/- for the injuries sustained by her husband in MVC 1755/2012. Dissatisfied with the sum awarded by the Tribunal, these appeals have been filed by the claimants.

Heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

The point that arise for my consideration in these appeals is,

"Whether the appellants in both the cases are entitled to enhanced compensation? If so, to what extent?"

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the assessment of income and grant of compensation on each of the heads is on the lower side and it needs enhancement.

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 - the insurer supports the judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that just compensation has been granted and no grounds are made out to call for interference in the impugned judgment and award.

In MFA No. 200926/2014 (MVC No. 1451/2012) Mahadevi (the deceased) - the wife of the injured was 28 years old. Her income has been assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 4,000/- per month. The accident is of the year 2012. Generally, a sum of Rs. 6,250/- is considered as income for the services rendered by the wife even in the Lok Adalaths with the consent of the parties and therefore, it appears to be just and proper to consider the income of the deceased at Rs. 6,250/- per month. Deducting 1/3 of it towards her personal expenses, the net income would be Rs. 4,166/- per month. The multiplier of 17 is applicable to the facts. Thereby, the total compensation payable towards the loss of dependency would be Rs. 4,166/- x 12 x 17 = Rs. 8,49,864/-. Deducting a sum of Rs. 6,12,000/-awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants are entitled to an additional sum of Rs. 2,37,864/-.

The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of consortium. The person entitled to the compensation on this head is the husband. As per the cause title, his age is mentioned as 42 years. They have got two children out of the wedlock. Considering his age and the possibility of a remarriage, an additional sum of Rs. 30,000/- appears to be reasonable on this head.

Only a sum of Rs. 20,000/- has been awarded towards loss of love and affection. The persons entitled to the compensation on this head are the children and the parents of the deceased. Considering the aforesaid aspect, an additional sum of Rs. 30,000/- would be reasonable on this head.

Though learned counsel for the appellant submits that compensation towards loss to estate is not granted, considering the nature of service rendered by the wife, I do not find any justification to grant any compensation on this head.

A sum of Rs. 5,000/- has been awarded towards funeral expenses. An additional sum of Rs. 5,000/- would be just and reasonable on this head.

Thereby, the additional compensation payable to the appellants would be as under:

In MFA No. 200927/2014 (MVC No. 1755/2012) The injury certificate has been produced at Ex. P5. The CT Scan report was taken. It reveal the fracture of left occipital calvarium upto margins of foramen magnum, longitudinal fracture of right petrous temporal bone with right lemoty magnum, a compression of right lateral ventricle and sub-dural hemorrhage was found. It is in these circumstances, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards pain and suffering. As the appellant has suffered head injury, considering the nature of fracture and other injuries suffered, an additional sum of Rs. 10,000/- appears to be just and reasonable on this head.

The Tribunal has considered the disability at 20% of the whole body. No grounds are made out to enhance the same.

The income assessed by the Tribunal is Rs. 4,500/- per month. But considering his income at Rs. 6,250/- per month, as the accident is of the year 2012 and the multiplier of 17, as he is 27 years old as per the Transfer Certificate -Ex. P14, the net compensation payable towards loss of future earning would be Rs. 6,250/- � 12 � 17 � 20% = Rs. 2,55,000/-. Deducting a sum of Rs. 1,83,600/-awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant is entitled to an additional sum of Rs. 71,400/- on this head.

A sum of Rs. 15,000/- has been awarded towards loss of amenities. An additional sum of Rs. 5,000/- appears to be just and reasonable on this head.

A sum of Rs. 13,500/- has been awarded towards loss of income during the period of treatment. Considering the income of the appellant at Rs. 6,250/-, an additional sum of Rs. 5,250/- is payable on this head.

No compensation is awarded towards food, nourishment, attendant charges etc. A sum of Rs. 10,000/- appears to be reasonable on this head.

As could be seen from the injury certificate and also the CT scan report, the appellant has not suffered any fracture. But the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards future medical expenses on the ground that there are implants in the right knee. When the appellant has not suffered any fracture in the right knee, the question of inserting implants does not arise. So this sum of Rs. 20,000/- will be deducted from the amount payable in excess.

Thereby, the additional compensation payable to the appellant would be as under:

The appellants are entitled to the aforesaid sum with interest at 9% p.a.

Hence, the point raised is answered in affirmative.

Consequently, the appeals are allowed in part.

The appellants in MFA No. 200926/2014 are entitled to a sum of Rs. 3,02,864/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of the petition till its payment, in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

The appellant in MFA No. 200927/2014 is entitled to a sum of Rs. 81,650/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of the petition till its payment, in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

However, the appellants are not entitled for interest over the delayed period of 151 days that occurred in filing the appeals.

The formula adopted by the Tribunal has to be applied even for the amount enhanced.