AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This is an appeal preferred by the appellants/claimants by questioning the impugned judgment passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Ron in MVC No.6/2007, dated 31st December 2011 by
awarding compensation for a sum of Rs.10,519/- with interest at 6% p.a.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents.
The learned counsel for the appellant during the course of his arguments contended that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Court below is contrary to law, arbitrary and the records of the case is against the principles of natural justice. The compensation awarded by Tribunal is totally in adequate compared to the records of the case. Therefore, in this appeal it is required to be revisiting the impugned judgment by considering the evidence as put forth by PW1 as well as the documents at Exs.P1 to P39, produced to establish the case against the respondents. It is further pointed out that the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding meager compensation for the death of the deceased Gangavva, where she has sustained injuries due to the accident, as the same is reflected in the wound certificate. The deceased -
Gangavva being an injured, when she met with an accident admittedly, the Tribunal has held that the accident was occurred solely because of the rash and negligence driving by the driver of the offending vehicle, insurance policy was existed and the second respondent is liable to pay the compensation. Therefore, it ought to have been awarded compensation in all the heads, as they sought for by filing the petition before the Tribunal. It is further pointed out that the Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding the compensation under different heads as admittedly. The death of the deceased-Gangavva, who met with an accident and sustaining injuries was also suffering with bed sore. Therefore, the grounds urged in this appeal apart from the evidence which have been put forth by PW1 and also the documents at Exs.P1 to P39 produced by the petitioner to establish the case against the respondents seeking compensation as they sought for by filing the claim petition before the Tribunal.
Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents No.2 - Insurance Company submitted to defend the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and the same shall be maintained as there are no justifiable grounds to urge by the appellants too for seeking enhancement of compensation as they sought for by urging the various grounds. Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondent seeking for dismissal of the appeal and confirming the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
In this regard, it is relevant to state that on 12.01.2005 at about 11:30 p.m. in the night hours, when the deceased Gangavva along with the petitioners waiting for the bus in front of the Shivanand Math at Ron to go to Ambabhavani Jatra, a tipper bearing No.KA-52/2013 came from Gajendragad in rash and negligent manner endangering the human life, the said tipper crossed wire on the road and thereby dashed to the electric pole which was fallen on the head of the deceased Gangavva and caused severe injuries. Immediately she was admitted to the
Primary Health Center at Ron for treatment and thereafter she was shifted to KIMS Hospital, where she has taken the treatment by incurring huge amount due to injury, which she sustained. Then she constrained to file the claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation.
In response to the notice issued on the claim petition, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have put their appearance through their counsel. The first and second respondents have filed their separate written statement by resisting the claim petition filed by the petitioner seeking compensation. By denial of all abatements made in the claim petition in respect of age, occupation and income of the petitioner are denied. As thus seeking dismissal of the claim petition.
The second respondent also filed written statement in detail denying the averments made in the claim petition and further contended that the aforesaid Tipper bearing KA-52/013 was not insured with respondent No.2 and the driver of the said vehicle was not holding valid
and effective licence, the age, occupation and income of the claimant has also denied by filing the written statement to resist the claim petition. As thus, seeking dismissal of the claim petition.
Based upon the pleading of both the parties, the Tribunal has framed the following issues:
1) Whether the petitioners prove that the accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the Tipper bearing Reg.No.KA-52/213 and caused death of the deceased Gangavva Mallappa Kattimani?
2) Whether the petitioners prove that they are entitled to get compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?
3) What order or award?
In order to substantiate their case, the first petitioner examined himself as PW1 by reiterating the
averments made in the claim petition, which has been filed before the Tribunal for seeking compensation. The entire facts regarding the accident which occurred and how that Gangavva has sustained grievous injuries and how she has last her breath narrated. Apart from that PW1, who has produced the documents at Exs.P1 to P39 to establish their case. However, Exs.P1 is the certified copy of FIR, P2 is the certified copy of the complaint and P3 is the certified copy of the charge sheet. It is relevant to note that Exs.P10 to 12 are the scanning films, Ex.P13 is the death certificate of Gangavva, Ex.P14 is the summary sheet issued by the KIMS Hospital, Hubballi and Ex.P15 is the indoor case sheet and Ex.P16 is the chit issued by the KIMS hospital, Hubballi. Exs.P17 to P22 are the medical report, city scan report, Blood X-ray investigation reports. All these documents, which are produced by the claimant in order to establish the case against the respondent for seeking compensation. However, it is relevant to state that Exs.P23 to P35 are the medical bills, P36 and P37 are the city scan reports, P38 is the discharge card and Ex.P39 is the death certificate in respect of Gangavva. However, the Tribunal has been awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.10,519/- towards the medical expenses, which has been met by the claimantspetitioners to the deceased - Gangavva, which is at Exs.P23 to P35, as the bills which has produced. But the petitioners i.e, Savantrevva was aged about 17 years, Ireppa was aged about 15 years, Raju was aged about 13 years and Laxmi was aged about 11 years, as these appellant Nos.2 to 5 are the minor childrens of the deceased-Gangavva, as they have lost their mother Gangavva while she was met with an accident and also sustaining injuries as indicated in the wound certificate and also that they have lost the love and affection or passionate to the extent which is extended by their mother to the minor children. To that aspects are concerned, it is relevant to consider the decision as placed by the learned counsel for the appellants in the case of Sarla Varma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported
in 2009 ACJ 1209, this reliance was also reflected in the impugned judgment. In the said judgment at para-9, it is held has under:
"9. Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death : (a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and the (c) the number of dependents. The issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are (i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income; (ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference of the age of the deceased. If these determinants are standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency in the decisions. There will lesser need for detailed evidence."
and also at para-23 in the case of Arun Kumar Agrawal and another vs. National Insurance Company and others reported in Civil Appeal No.5843/2010 (arising out of SLP(C) No.19655/2004, it is held as under:
"23. In India the Courts have recognised that the contribution made by the wife to the house is invaluable and cannot be computed in terms of money. The gratuitous services rendered by wife with true love and affection to the children and her husband and managing the household affairs cannot be equated with the services rendered by others. A wife/mother does not work by the clock. She is in the constant attendance of the family throughout the day and night unless she is employed and is required to attend the employer''s work for particular hours. She takes care of all the requirements of husband and children including cooking of food, washing of clothes, etc. She teaches small children and provides invaluable guidance to them for their future life. A housekeeper or maidservant can do the household work, such as cooking food, washing clothes and utensils, keeping the house clean etc., but she can never be a substitute for a wife/mother who renders selfless service to her husband and children."
However, keeping in view of the reliance which has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellant in this appeal as well as the fairly conceded by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company regarding love and affection or passionate which has to be extended by the mother to the aforesaid minor children, they have lost their mother-Gangavva while she was met with an accident and also sustaining injuries as indicated in the wound certificate also she last her breath in the house while she was suffering with bed sore. Therefore, these aspects are concerned, it is in this appeal needs to be considered for the love and affection or passionate of the deceased Gangavva to the minor children i.e., appellant Nos.2 to 5 as contended by the counsel for the appellant. Hence, they are entitled for compensation in a sum of Rs.40,000/- in addition to that Rs.10,519/-, which has already been awarded by the Tribunal keeping in view of the evidence of PW1 and as well as the documents at Exs.P1 to P39 produced by them. For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The appeal is hereby allowed in part. Under the head of compensation relating to the love and affection or passionate a sum of Rs.40,000/- has been enhanced in addition to that Rs.10,519/-, which has already been awarded by the Tribunal. The aforesaid amount shall be deposited within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.