Manager-Legal vs Jabanath and Others

N.K. Patil, J.

This appeal by the Insurance Company is directed against the judgment and award dated 1st December 2009, passed in MVC No. 1573/2009, by the XI Additional Judge and Court of Small Causes, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH-12), (for short, ''Tribunal'') for reduction of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 19,24,920/- with 6% interest per annum, awarded in favour of the sole claimant as against her claim for Rs. 25,00,000/-, is excessive, exorbitant and on the higher side.

The facts in brief are that the respondent No. 1 herein is the claimant/mother of deceased Saurajit Nath, who died in the road traffic accident. The sole claimant/respondent No. 1 filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that, at about 4:30 P.M. on 14-01-2009, when the deceased was riding his motor cycle bearing Registration No. KA-03/ET-2141 slowly and cautiously, on the left side of the Kudalahalli main road- BEML Layout junction, at that time, the driver of Tavera Car bearing registration No. KA-03/C-5985 came at a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, and dashed against the deceased. Due to the impact, the deceased son of the sole claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot.

It is the case of the sole claimant/mother of the deceased that, the deceased was hale and healthy prior to the date of accident, which resulted in his death and that he was working as HR in Personal Department at First Indian Corporation, drawing monthly salary of Rs. 19,742/- and during his 29 years of service still left, he would have got atleast three promotions and increments and he was filing the returns regularly and an income tax assessee and that the Company was regularly deducting income tax from out of his salary every month. It is the further case of the sole claimant that he was the only bread earner in the family and used to contribute the entire sum towards the family requirements and in view of his untimely and unnatural death at an young age, the family is displaced and she is in great financial distress and has lost the only hope, social and financial security and aspiration in life and therefore, she has to be compensated reasonably.

On account of the death of the deceased, the sole claimant filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- against the appellant/Insurer and owner of the offending vehicle. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 1st December, 2009. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, awarding a sum of Rs. 19,24,920/- under different heads, with 6% interest per annum, and directed the appellant/insurer to indemnify the same. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the Insurer is in appeal before this Court, seeking reduction of compensation.

We have gone through the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal carefully, perused the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal and heard the learned counsel for Insurer as well as the counsel appearing for sole claimant/mother of deceased.

The submission of the learned counsel appearing for Insurer, Shri. A.N. Krishna Swamy, at the outset is that, the Tribunal has grossly erred in adding 50% towards future prospects of the deceased, which is unsustainable and liable to be set aside at the threshold for the reason that, the deceased was aged about 29 years and working as Senior Executive in a Private Limited Company and sole claimant is none other than the mother of the deceased aged about 50 years at the time of accident. The claimant has not produced any credible documentary evidence to show that the deceased was working in a secured permanent job. Further, he vehemently submitted that, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the deceased was the younger son, aged 29 years and that mother of the deceased is the sole claimant, the multiplier of ''11'' adopted by Tribunal is just and proper and interference in the same is not called for. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal be modified, by reducing the compensation.

As against this, learned counsel appearing for sole claimant, sought to substantiate the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, stating that the same is passed after due consideration of the oral and documentary evidence available on file and interference in the same is uncalled for. Further, he submitted that in fact, the compensation awarded by Tribunal towards loss of estate and transportation and funeral expenses is on the lower side and the Tribunal has erred in not awarding any compensation towards loss of love and affection on account of the death of the deceased son in the road traffic accident. Therefore, he submitted that reasonable enhancement be made under the aforesaid conventional heads and reasonable compensation be awarded towards loss of love and affection and the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal be modified accordingly.

After considering the rival contentions of the parties, after perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal and after re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, the only point that arise for our consideration in this appeal is:

"Whether the quantum of compensation awarded is excessive and liable to be reduced?"

After careful perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, it is seen that, occurrence of accident on the aforesaid date and time and the resultant death of deceased Saurajit Nath are not in dispute. It is further not in dispute that the deceased was aged about 29 years and working as a Senior Executive Appraise, drawing salary of Rs. 20,000/- per month. It is stated that the sole claimant is the mother of the deceased, was aged about 50 years, at the time of accident. But, it can be seen that the claimant/mother of the deceased had two sons and the first son is living separately and the she was living with the second son, aged about 29 years, i.e. the deceased. Therefore, in the absence of credible documentary evidence, it proves beyond reasonable doubt that the claimant/mother of the deceased must be aged above 50 years. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly disbelieved the contention of the claimant that she was aged 50 years at the time of accident and observed that in the absence of credible documentary evidence, the mother of the deceased was definitely aged above 50 years at the time of accident and thus proceeded to adopt the multiplier of ''11'', to meet the ends of justice. The said reasoning and finding recorded by Tribunal is just and proper and the same is accepted and we also adopt the multiplier of ''11'' having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Further, it is seen that, the Tribunal, after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, particularly the Salary Certificate at Ex. P16, salary slip, is justified in assessing the annual income of the deceased at Rs. 2,30,000/-. The same is just and proper and based on the documentary evidence produced by the claimant and hence accepted. However, the Tribunal slipped into an error in adding 50% towards future prospects of the deceased. The same is unsustainable and cannot be accepted. However, in the light of the ratio of law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court in Santhosh Devi''s case (AIR 2012 SCW 2892), we are inclined to add 30% towards future prospects of the deceased. As the claimant/mother of the deceased is the sole dependent and the deceased was unmarried, 50% has to be deducted towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased. Accordingly, if 50% (i.e. Rs. 1,49,500/-) is deducted from Rs. 2,30,000/- towards his personal and living expenses, the net income would be Rs. 1,49,500/-. Thus, the compensation towards loss of dependency would work out to Rs. 16,44,500/- (i.e. Rs. 1,49,500/- x T1'') as against Rs. 18,99,920/- awarded by Tribunal.

Further, the Tribunal grossly erred in awarding only a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs. 15,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses and further erred in not awarding any compensation towards loss of love and affection. Therefore, having regard to the ratio of law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court and this Court in catena of decision, and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we award a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs. 25,000/- towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses and Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of estate as against the compensation awarded by Tribunal under the conventional heads.

Thus, the total compensation would work out to Rs. 17,19,500/- as against Rs. 19,24,920/- awarded by Tribunal, with interest at 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization. There would be reduction of compensation by Rs. 2,05,420/-.

In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 1st December 2009, passed in MVC No. 1573/2009, by the XI Additional Judge and Court of Small Causes, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH-12), is hereby modified, reducing the total compensation from Rs. 19,24,920/- awarded by Tribunal, to Rs. 17,19,500/- (reduction being Rs. 2,05,420/-), with interest at 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization.

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the remaining compensation, with interest thereon at 6% per annum, within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment.

The apportionment and the manner of disbursement of compensation ordered by Tribunal gets proportionately reduced to the extent of reduction of compensation made by this Court.

The amount in deposit by the Insurance Company is directed to be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal, forthwith.

Office to draw award, accordingly.