M.P. Umadevi and Others vs M.R. Nissar Ahmed and Others

N.K. Patil, J.—This is claimants'' appeal filed against the impugned judgment and award dated 21st July 2006 passed in MVC No. 57/2004 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. DN) and MACT, Maddur, (hereinafter referred to as ''Tribunal'' for short), for enhancement of compensation.

The Tribunal by its judgment and award has awarded a sum of Rs. 4,10,000/- under different heads with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, as against the claim of the claimants for a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased late Sri Jeevan in the road traffic accident.

In brief, the facts of the case are:

The 1st and 2nd appellants are parents of the deceased and 3rd appellant is sister of the deceased and they have filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation of Rs. 25,00,000/- on account of the death of the deceased in the road traffic accident, contending that, when the deceased by name Jeevan on 30.10.2003 at about 12.00 a.m. and his friend were going towards Someshwarasamudayabavana, Maddur by walk on the left side of M.C. Road, he met with an accident near House of MLA Dr. Maheshchand due to negligent driving by the driver of lorry bearing No. CNG/6285 which came and dashed against the deceased from hind portion. The deceased succumbed to the injury. The appellants have spent Rs. 15,000/- towards transport and funeral charges. It is the case of the appellants that they are dependents on the deceased. Deceased was the only bread earning member and they were dependent on the deceased. They have lost their sole bread earner. Accident caused due to actionable negligence of driver of the lorry. It is the further case of the appellants that, the deceased was aged about 27 years at the time of accident, hale and healthy and was an agriculturist and Sericulturist from which he was earning Rs. 10,000/- and a congress Vice-President of Kirgavulu and to that effect the deceased was earning Rs. 10,000/-, total Rs. 20,000/- p.m. and contributing the entire income to the welfare of his family. Due to his untimely death, they suffered socially and economically and sudden death of the deceased has caused much hardship to his family members. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence at Exs. P1 to P13 and other material available on record, has allowed the claim petition in part and awarded the compensation of Rs. 3,90,000/- towards loss of dependency, Rs. 10,000/- towards funeral and transportation charges and Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of expectation of life. In all Rs. 4,10,000/- is awarded, with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants have presented this appeal, for enhancement of compensation.

The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants at the outset is that, the Tribunal has failed to assess the just and reasonable income of the deceased and the income of Rs. 5,000/- per month assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side since the accident has occurred on 30.10.2003 and he was aged about 27 years and only son to his parents. The Tribunal has not considered the income of the deceased properly as he was agriculturist, Sericulturist, social worker, youth congress leader and was congress Vice-President of Kirgavulu earning Rs. 20,000/- p.m. Taking all these aspects, the income of the deceased may be reassessed at least between Rs. 6,000/- to 7,000/- p.m. He relied up the judgment of Apex Court and this Court and in case of Reshma Kumari and Others Vs. Madan Mohan and Another, in CA 4497/2015 dated 15.5.2015 on the file of Supreme Court of India, wherein the three Bench has adopted the multiplier taking the age of the deceased and deducting 50% towards personal expenses for calculation of loss of dependency. The Tribunal also erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards other conventional heads. Therefore, he submitted that the income of the deceased may be re-assessed. Due to his un-timely death, claimants have lost their only breadwinner and facing great mental shock and monetary loss. Therefore, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be modified.

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurer inter alia contended and substantiated that, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper. The Tribunal has rightly assessed income of the deceased at Rs. 5,000/- p.m. as the appellants have not produced any documents to show the income of the deceased and taking consideration of the RTC and other materials on record the Tribunal rightly assessed the income at more than Rs. 60,000/- p.a. It is passed after considering the oral and documentary evidence and interference by this Court is not called for. However, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal may be modified in accordance with law.

After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and on perusal of the material available on record, including the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the only point that arise for consideration is:

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

It is not in dispute that the deceased died in the road traffic accident. Further it is not in dispute that, the deceased was aged about 27 years at the time of accident, hale and healthy and looking after the welfare of the appellants. The claimants are none other than the parents and sister of the deceased, who have lost their future security due to his untimely death. He was agriculturist and sericulturist and social worker and congress leader and it is stated that he was earning Rs. 20,000/- p.m. Having regard to the age, avocation and year of accident, we can safely re-assess the income of the deceased at Rs. 6,000/- per month to meet the ends of justice as against the income assessed by the Tribunal. Out of it, if 50% is deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased, it comes to Rs. 3,000/-. In light of the judgment of Apex Court and this Court and in the light of the Judgment in case of Reshma Kumari and Others Vs. Madan Mohan and Another, and Munnalal Jam v. Vipin Kumar Sharma in CA 4497/2015 dated 15.5.2015 on the file of Supreme Court of India and also in Sarla Vermel''s case, the appropriate multiplier applicable is 17. Accordingly, the appellants are entitled towards loss of dependency at Rs. 6,12,000/- (Rs. 3,000/- x 12 x 17).

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case that, the parents have lost their son and sister has lost her brother and they have lost the love and affection, inspiration and guidance in life, we deem it fit to award Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs. 75,000/- towards loss of love and affection at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- to each appellant and Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral and transportation expenses. In all, the claimants are entitled for Rs. 7,37,000/- as against Rs. 4,10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal dated 21st July 2006 in MVC No. 57/2004 is hereby modified. The total compensation payable comes to Rs. 7,37,000/- as against Rs. 4,10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. There will be an enhancement of Rs. 3,27,000/- with 6% interest per annum.

The 2nd respondent-Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 3,27,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realisation, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Out of the enhanced compensation, Rs. 1,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank, in the name of the 1st appellant/mother for a period of ten years and renewable for another five years, with liberty to her to withdraw the interest accrued on it periodically.

Out of the remaining enhanced compensation, Rs. 50,000/- each with proportionate interest shall be invested in the Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank, in the name of the 2nd appellant/father and 3rd appellant/sister, for a period of five years and renewable for another five years, with liberty to them to withdraw the interest accrued on it periodically.

The remaining Rs. 1,27,000/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd appellants, immediately, on deposit by the 2nd respondent-Insurer.

Draw the award, accordingly.