Meenakshi vs Nazeer Ahmed

B. Sreenivas Gowda, J.—As these two appeals are arising out of a common road traffic accident and a common judgment of the Tribunal, they are heard together and disposed of finally with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties by this common judgment.

As there is no dispute regarding death of deceased Shivaputrappa and injuries sustained by his father-in-law Deewakar in the road traffic accident that occurred on 29.07.2011 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending Lorry bearing Reg. No. KA-27/A-4344 by its driver and liability of the insurer of the said vehicle, the only point remains for consideration in the appeals is:

"Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in each case is just and reasonable or does it call for enhancement?

After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perusing the judgment and award of the Tribunal, we are of the view that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in the case of death of Shivaputrappa is not just and reasonable, it is on the lower side and therefore, it is required to be enhanced and whereas the compensation awarded for the injuries sustained by his father-in-law Deewakar is just and proper and it does not require enhancement.

MFA No. 30721/2013:

It is a case of death of one Shivaputrappa in a road traffic accident that occurred on 29.07.2011. His wife and three children filed a claim petition in MVC No. 970/2011 seeking compensation from the owner and the insurer of the offending motor vehicle under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal by impugned judgment and award has awarded a sum of Rs. 20,40,000/- under the following heads:

The claimants aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal have preferred this appeal seeking enhancement.

The claimants in support of their contention that the deceased by working as a Male Staff Nurse in Health Department at G.G.H. Haveri, was drawing a salary of Rs. 21,079/- per month, have not only examined first claimant wife of the deceased as PW-1, have also produced the salary certificate of the deceased at Ex. P7. Ex. P7 discloses that the deceased was getting gross salary of Rs. 21,079/- per month at the time of his death. The Tribunal has rightly deducted a sum of Rs. 200/- towards Professional Tax and Rs. 200/- towards income tax and reached the figure of Rs. 20,679/-. Thereafter, instead of rounding off Rs. 20,679/- into Rs. 21,000/- has committed an error in rounding it off to Rs. 20,000/- as deceased had 9 more years to retire from service and certainly there would have been some increase in his future salary. Therefore, we take the income of the deceased at Rs. 21,000/- per month.

The deceased had not attained the age of 51 years at the time of his death. He was in the age group of 46 to 50 and the proper multiplier applicable to the persons of said age group is ''13'' and not ''11'' as employed by the Tribunal. Considering all the four claimants are dependent legal heirs of deceased, the Tribunal was justified in deducting 1/4th of the income of the deceased towards his personal and living expenses and taking remaining 3/4th as his contribution towards his family. So, the loss of dependency works out to Rs. 21,000/- x 3/4 x 12 x 13 = Rs. 24,57,000/- and it is awarded as against Rs. 19,80,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

It is to be seen that the first claimant has lost her husband at the age of 48 years and claimants 2, 3 and 4 have lost love and affection of their father at their young age. Therefore, we award a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of consortium in respect of first claimant and Rs. 45,000/- towards loss of love and affection of claimants 2 to 4 at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- each. Further, we award a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses as against Rs. 10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. As Rs. 15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of estate is just and proper, the same does not require enhancement.

The break up is as under:

Thus the appellants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 25,57,000/- as against Rs. 20,40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal and are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 5,17,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation.

Accordingly, appeal is allowed in part and the Judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent stated herein above. Appellants are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 5,17,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the additional compensation amount together with interest within 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The apportionment of enhanced compensation including deposit and immediate release of the amount will be in terms of the award of the Tribunal.

MFA No. 30720/2013:

It is a case of injury sustained by one Deewakar aged about 62 years. As per the wound certificate Ex. P8, he had sustained the following injuries:

"(i) Lacerated wound over medial aspect of left foot;

(ii) Lacerated wound over posterior aspect of left foot;

(iii) Abrasion over right elbow posterior aspect and

(iv) Abrasion over right forearm."

Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant Rs. 30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering, Rs. 60,000/- awarded towards medical expenses based on the medical bills and prescriptions produced by the claimant, Rs. 15,000/- awarded towards incidental expenses such as conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges, Rs. 30,000/- awarded towards future medical expenses and Rs. 20,000/- awarded towards loss of amenities is just and proper. As the claimant has not suffered any disability on account of injuries sustained in the accident, the Tribunal was justified in not awarding any compensation towards disability and loss of future income. As the total compensation of Rs. 1,55,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under various heads is found to be more than just entitlement, there is no scope for enhancement.

Accordingly the appeal is dismissed as devoid of merit.

Office to draw up the award accordingly.

No order as to costs.