AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon''ble DR. Justice K. Bhakthavatsala
Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal has not awarded adequate compensation towards loss of dependency, loss of love and affection, loss of expectancy of life, funeral expenses, conveyance expenses, loss of estate, loss of consortium and transportation expenses.
Learned Counsel for respondent No. 3/Insurance Company submits that there is no good ground for enhancement of compensation.
Perused the LCR.
The claimants are father, mother, three brothers and three sisters. They have filed a claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- towards death of Aman, aged about 25 years, earning Rs. 10,000/- per month as Mason Mestri. During the pendency of the claim petition, claimant No. 1/father of the deceased passed away. The mother of the deceased has got herself examined as P.W1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P13. Respondents have not adduced rebuttal evidence. Copy of insurance policy has been marked as Ex.R1. The Tribunal has answered issue No. 1 on the point of negligence in the affirmative. The Tribunal has awarded compensation in favour of the claimant as under:
(i)
Loss of dependency
(in Rs. ) 2,72,000-00
(ii)
Loss of love and affection
10,000-00
(iii)
Loss of expectation of life
20,000-00
(iv)
Funeral expenses and transportation of dead body
10,000-00
Total
3,12,000-00
in para-15 of the impugned judgment, the Tribunal has discussed about the income of the deceased. The Tribunal has held that the claimants did not prove that the deceased was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month, but the Tribunal has fixed income of the claimant at Rs. 2,000/- per month i.e., Rs. 24,000/- per annum. After deducting l/3rd of the income towards personal expenses, taken loss of dependency at Rs. 16,0007- per annum. The Tribunal has applied multiplier ''17'' on the ground that the deceased was 23 years old at the time of accident.
The accident occurred in the year 2007. As per Ex. P5/post mortem report, the deceased was 23 yeaRs. The deceased died as a bachelor. The mother of the deceased was 55 years old. Hence, multiplier ''11'' is applicable, but the Tribunal has applied multiplier ''17'' and 1/3rd of the income can be deducted towards personal expenses. The claimants did not prove that the deceased was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. The deceased was the eldest son. During the pendency of the claim petition, claimant No. 1/father died. The claimants are residents of Davangere. Even if the deceased is treated as a Coolie in the year 2007, he would have earned a sum of Rs. 4.200/- per month. If a sum of Rs. 1,400/- is deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, loss of dependency comes to Rs. 2,800/- per month. Since the deceased died as a bachelor, question of awarding compensation towards loss of consortium does not arise.
In my view, the claimant is entitled for compensation as under:
(i)
Loss of dependency ( Rs. 2,800/-x 12 x 11)
(in Rs. ) 3,69,600-00
(ii)
Loss of love and affection
10,000-00
(iii)
Loss of expectation of life
20,000-00
(iv)
Transportation of dead body and funeral expenses
10,000-00
Total
4,09,600-00
Less: Compensation awarded by the Tribunal
3,12,000-00
Balance
97,600-00
In the result, the Appeal is partly allowed, awarding additional compensation of Rs. 97,600/- along with costs and interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of Petition till realization. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and award are modified. The additional compensation amount along with costs and interest shall paid to appellant No. 2 viz., mother of the deceased. The other claimants are not entitled for any additional compensation.
Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the additional compensation amount along with costs and interest with the Tribunal within 3 months from today.