Mangalamma and Others vs Ramesh and Others

N.K. Patil, J.—Though this appeal is listed for orders, with the consent of learned Counsel on both sides, it is taken up for final disposal.

This appeal is filed by the claimants against the impugned judgment and award dated 17.11.2012 passed in MVC No. 861/2009 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT-10 at Tumkur (hereinafter referred to as ''Tribunal'' for brevity) awarding compensation of Rs. 4,65,402/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit on account of death of one Chikkeerappa in a road traffic accident. On the ground that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side, the claimants have presented this appeal.

Brief facts of the case in hand are:

Appellant No. 1 is the wife and appellant Nos. 2, & 3 are the minor children of the deceased Chikkeerappa. They filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, claiming compensation against the respondents on account of untimely death of the deceased Chikkeerappa, in a road traffic accident that occurred on 1.2.2009, due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle involved in the accident. He sustained fatal injuries on the vital parts of the body. Immediately thereafter, he was shifted to District Government Hospital, Tumkur and admitted as in-patient and took treatment for ten days and on the advise of the doctor, he was shifted to Sri Siddartha Medical College Hospital, Tumkur and admitted as an in-patient and took treatment for about 40 days and thereafter shifted to Government Hospital, Kestur, where he took treatment for 5 days. In spite of their best efforts, they could not save the deceased and he succumbed to the injuries on 25.3.2009 at about 6.00 A.M. It is the case of the appellants that the deceased was the only bread earning member in the family. He was aged 31 years and a progressive agriculturist and also doing milk vending and coconut business. The wife has lost her companion at the young age. The minor children have lost love and affection, inspiration and guidance of their father; Therefore, the appellants/claimants filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act claiming compensation of Rs. 30,00,000/- against the respondents. The claim petition filed by the claimants came up for consideration before the Tribunal and the Tribunal in turn after perusal of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, allowed the claim petition in part awarding a sum of Rs. 4,65,402/- under different heads with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Being dissatisfied with the same, the claimants have presented this appeal.

We have heard Sri G.S. Venkat Subbarao, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri Bipin Hegde, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 and Shri C.R. Ravishankar, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2.

Learned Counsel for the appellants at the outset submits that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of deceased at only Rs. 3,000/- per month. The deceased was an agriculturist and also doing milk vending business apart from coconut plucking work and earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. The deceased was the only bread winner in the family. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have assessed the monthly income reasonably and awarded compensation under the head loss of dependency'' by deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses and also by applying the multiplier ''16''. He further contended that the compensation awarded towards conventional heads is also on the lower side. Therefore, he prays to re-determine the compensation towards loss of dependency and conventional heads by modifying the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

Per contra, learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent-Insurer inter alia sought to substantiate the impugned judgment and award by contending that the Tribunal has awarded reasonable compensation after due consideration of the oral and documentary evidence available on record and hence it does not call for interference.

After critical evaluation of the material available on record and considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel for both parties and perusal of the impugned judgment and award, the only point that arises for our consideration is:

"Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?"

The occurrence of the accident and death of deceased in the accident are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was aged 31 years, doing agriculture, milk vending business and also coconut plucking work. The wife was aged about 22 years and she has lost her husband at the young age. The children aged about 7 years and 3 years have lost love and affection of their father. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we reassess the income of the deceased at Rs. 6,000/- per month as against Rs. 3,000/- assessed by the Tribunal and out of that, if 1/3rd is deducted towards personal expenses, what remains is Rs. 4,000/-. The deceased was aged 31 years and appropriate multiplier is ''16''. Accordingly, loss of dependency works out to Rs. 7,68,000/-. (Rs. 4,000/- x 12 x 16) as against Rs. 3,84,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

In the light of catena of judgments of the Apex Court and this Court, we deem it appropriate to award a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of consortium as against Rs. 10,000/-, Rs. 75,000/- towards loss of love and affection (Rs. 25,000x3) as against Rs. 10,000/-, Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of estate as against Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses as against Rs. 10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has rightly awarded a compensation of Rs. 41,402/- towards medical and incidental expenses and it does not call for interference. Hence, the compensation, in all, works out to Rs. 9,84,402/- as against Rs. 4,65,402/- awarded by the Tribunal. There will be an enhancement of Rs. 5,19,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.

For the foregoing reasons, the instant appeal filed by the appellants is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 17.11.2012 passed in MVC No. 861/2009 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT-10 at Tumkur, is hereby modified by awarding Rs. 9,84,402/- as against Rs. 4,65,402/- awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation comes to Rs. 5,19,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit.

The second respondent is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Out of enhanced compensation of Rs. 5,19,000/-, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the name of appellant No. 1, in F.D. in any nationalised or scheduled bank for a period of 15 years and renewable for 10 years, with liberty to withdraw the interest periodically.

A sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- each with proportionate interest shall be invested in F.D. in the name of appellant Nos. 2 & 3 respectively, in any Nationalised or Scheduled or Grameena bank till they attain the age of 30 years. Appellant No. 1 who is the mother of appellant Nos. 2 & 3 is entitled to withdraw the interest periodically till appellant Nos. 2 & 3 attain the age of 22 years, for the welfare of appellant Nos. 2 & 3. From 22 years to 30 years, appellant Nos. 2 & 3 are entitled to withdraw the interest periodically.

The remaining amount of Rs. 1,19,000/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of 1st appellant-wife of deceased immediately upon deposit of the same by the Insurer.

Office to draw the award accordingly.