Manager, Reliance GIC Ltd. vs Mamatha Chandrappa

B. Manohar, J.—The Reliance General Insurance Company Limited has filed this appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and award dated 30-3-2015 made in MVC No. 4303/2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as ''the Tribunal'' for short) whereby the Tribunal has fastened liability on them to compensate the claimants.

The main grievance of the appellant is that the deceased did not have any stable income and the future prospects of 50% of the income added by the Tribunal while awarding loss of dependency is contrary to law. Further, the compensation awarded towards conventional heads also required to be modified and hence sought for allowing the appeal.

The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as under:

The respondents 1 to 4 herein filed a claim petition contending that husband of the first claimant and father of the second claimant and son of claimants 3 and 4 one Chandrappa alias Chandra was working as a loader in Eicher Lorry bearing Registration No.KA-19/AC-2277 belonging to the first respondent in the claim petition which was insured with the 3rd respondent. On 20-2-2013, while he was proceeding in the Eicher lorry on Bangalore-Mangalore road, a lorry bearing Registration No.KA-13/A-2331 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the said Eicher lorry. Due to the impact, Chandrappa sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to A.C.Giri hospital, B.G. Nagara, thereafter, he was shifted to BGS Global hospital at Bangalore. However, he succumbed to the injuries on 8-3-2013. In the claim petition it was contended that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.9,000/- p.m. In view of death of the deceased, the family has lost the bread earner and sought for compensation of Rs.20,47,000/-.

In response to the notice issued by the Tribunal, though the owner of the offending lorry was served with notice, he remained unrepresented. The insurance company defended the case by filing the written statement.

On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues.

In order to prove the case of the claimants, the first claimant got examined herself as P.W.1 and also examined one of the eye-witnesses to the accident as P.W.2 and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P15. On behalf of the respondent-insurance company, 4 witnesses were examined as R.W.1 to R.W.4 and got marked the documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R9.

The Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties and taking into consideration IMV report, spot sketch, spot mahazar, copy of the inquest report and other relevant records held that the accident occurred due to the actionable negligence driving of the offending lorry bearing Registration No.KA-13/A-2331 and Chandrappa who was working as a loader in the Eicher lorry died. The claimants are the dependents of the deceased and hence they are entitled for compensation. With regard to quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal taking into consideration the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- p.m., adding 50% of the income towards future prospects and deducting �th towards his personal expenditure, applying the multiplier 17 as he was aged about 27 years as on the date of accident, awarded a sum of Rs.13,77,000/- towards loss of dependency; Rs.1,50,000/- towards loss of consortium to the wife; Rs.1,50,000/- towards loss of love and affection to the minor son; a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection to the father and mother a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- towards loss of estate and a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards transportation of dead body. In all, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 20,47,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. Since the insurance policy was in force as on the date of accident, the liability was fastened on the insurance company to compensate the claimants. Being aggrieved by the exorbitant compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the insurance company has preferred this appeal.

Sri. B. Pradeep, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. The deceased was working as a loader in the Eicher lorry, he did not have a stable job and stable income. The issue with regard to awarding of future prospects to the person who has no stable income is pending before Hon''ble Supreme Court. Hence, adding 50% towards future prospects by the Tribunal is contrary to law. Further, a sum of Rs.6,70,000/- awarded towards conventional heads is also contrary to law in view of the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 : (AIR 2009 SC 3104). Hence, the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is required to be set aside and sought for allowing the appeal.

On the other hand, Sri. N.S. Bhat, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 argued in support of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and contended that at the young age of 22 years, the wife has lost the company of her husband; the minor son has lost the love and affection of his father and the aged parents at their old age have lost the love and affection of their son. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the entire aspects of the matter has awarded just and fair compensation and sought for dismissal of the appeal.

I have carefully considered the agruments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award, oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties.

The dispute in this appeal is only with regard to quantum of compensation.

The main contention of the appellant is that the deceased was working as a loader in the Eicher lorry. Though the claimants claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.9,000/- p.m., as a loader, no document has been produced to prove the same, however the Tribunal has taken the income of Rs.6,000/- p.m., adding 50% towards future prospects and awarded exorbitant compensation which requires modification. Admittedly, the accident occurred in the year 2013. Even for daily wage employees working in various Government Departments, the income is being taken as Rs.8,000/- p.m. In the instant case, adding of future prospects of 50% by the Tribunal is contrary to law. The deceased was not having stable income, hence awarding future prospects is contrary to law. Apart from that, the issue is pending before the larger Bench of the Hon''ble Supreme Court. Hence, I am of the opinion that taking the income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- p.m., deducting �th towards his personal expenditure since there are four dependents, applying the multiplier 17 since the deceased was aged about 27 years as on the date of accident, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 12,24,000/- as against Rs.13,77,000/- towards loss of dependency, Further, as per the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others, reported in 2013 ACJ 1403, wife of the deceased is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium; minor son is entitled to Rs.50,000/- towards loss of love and affection. Further, the aged parents at the fag end of their life have lost their son, hence they are entitled for a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of love and affection of their son. Further, the claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards transportation of dead body, loss of estaste and funeral expenses. In all, the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.14,49,000/- which is rounded off to Rs.14,50,000/- as against Rs.20,47,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

The appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 30-3-2015 made in MVC No.4303/2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore is hereby modified. The claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.14,50,000/- as against Rs.20,47,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at the rate of 8% p.a.

The amount in deposit is directed to be transmitted to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore forthwith, for disbursement.

Excess amount if any, be refunded to the appellant.

In view of disposal of the appeal, the memo for withdrawal of award amount is rejected.