AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil, J.—The instant appeal by the Insurer and cross objection by claimants/cross objectors are arising out of the impugned judgment and award dated 02.02.2011 passed in MVC No. 527/2009 on the file of the District Judge & II Additional MACT, Fast Track Court-I Shimoga, (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal for short). By its judgment and award, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 9,61,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization as against the claim made by the claimants, on account of the death of: me deceased-Krishnamurthy S/o. Ramalingam in the road traffic accident.
In brief, the facts of the case are:
The 1st cross-objector is the wife and 2nd cross-objector is the son of the deceased and they filed a claim petition u/s 166 of MV Act before the Tribunal claiming on account of the death of the deceased due to the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident that occurred on 20.05.2009 at about 9.00 p.m., when the deceased was riding his Bajaj Motor Bike No. KA-04/ES-4648 along with one Gangadhara as a pillion rider from Rathnakara Layout, Sowlange Road towards Shimoga City, due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending Goods Vehicle bearing No. KA-06/B-4587 which came from the opposite direction Due to impact he fell down and sustained head injury and immediately he was shifted to Mc. Gann Hospital, Shimoga and there the doctors declared him as dead. The claimants claim that, at the time of accident the deceased was aged about 57 years, hale and healthy and was earning Rs. 15,283/- per month by working in Forest Department, Karnataka and looking after the welfare of the claimants. Due to his un-timely death, the wife has lost her life partner and the 2nd claimant has lost love and affection, inspiration and guidance in life. They have lost their beloved family member and the only breadwinner. It has also affected moral, social and economic security of the claimants. Therefore, they were constrained to file claim petition against the owner, driver and insurer of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal after hearing both sides and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, has allowed the said claim petition in part and awarded a sum Rs. 9,61,000/- as compensation under different heads with interest at 6% pa., from the date of petition till its realisation. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, insurer has filed MFA No. 7232/2011 seeking reduction and the claimants have filed MFA Crob No. 134/2011 for enhancement of compensation.
The submission of learned counsel appearing for the appellant-insurer Sri H.N. Keshava Prashanth at the outset is that, the Tribunal has erred in issuing direction to the insurer to indemnify the award amount which cannot be sustained and liable to be modified. To substantiate the same, he pointed out and submitted that, neither there is a permit to ply the vehicle on the public road as a goods vehicle nor the owner of the lorry has produced any authenticated document issued by the jurisdictional RTO to show the same. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have reserved liberty to the appellant-insurer to recover the award amount from the owner, in accordance with law.
As against this, the learned counsel appearing for the cross-objectors inter alia contended that, the Tribunal has erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards loss of dependency and what is awarded inadequate and the same is liable to be modified by awarding reasonable compensation. Further, he submitted that, the deceased was getting gross salary of Rs. 15,949/- per month as per Ex. P14-salary certificate and out of it Rs. 200/- per month towards professional tax is the only permissible deduction. Further, the Tribunal has erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards conventional heads also. Therefore, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be modified by enhancing the compensation towards loss of dependency and conventional heads.
The submission of learned-counsel appearing for the appellant-insurer that the Tribunal has erred in issuing direction to the insurance company to indemnify the award is concerned, there is no authenticated document as such produced by the driver or owner of the offending vehicle to show that they have obtained the permit to drive the goods vehicle on road and what is produced is only the notary copy of the permit. The Tribunal has neither looked into nor appreciated the same. Therefore the direction issued by the Tribunal to Insurer to indemnify the award amount cannot be sustained.
After careful consideration of the submission of the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and on perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, it emerges that, occurrence of the accident resulting in the death of the deceased is not in dispute. Further, it is not in dispute that the deceased was aged about 57 years as on the date of accident and was working in Forest Department, Karnataka and drawing a gross salary of Rs. 15,949 per month as per Ex. P14. The deceased was the only earning member in the family and the claimants are none other than wife and son of the deceased. On account of his untimely death, the -appellants have lost moral, financial and security in life. Taking into consideration the Ex. P14-Salary Certificate we accept the gross salary of the deceased at Rs. 15,949/- per month and per annum it comes to Rs. 1,91,388/-. Out of it, if we deduct Rs. 2,400/- towards professional tax it comes to Rs. 1,88,988/- per annum. Further, out of Rs. 1,88,988/- if 1/3rd is deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased it comes to Rs. 1,25,992/- per annum. As the deceased was aged about 57 years at the time of accident, the appropriate multiplier applicable is ''9''. Accordingly, the appellants are entitled towards loss of dependency at Rs. 11,33,928/- (Rs. 1,25,992/- x 9) and accordingly awarded.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it fit to award Rs. 50,000/- towards conventional heads, such as loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, loss of estate-and funeral expenses and transportation expenses.
In all, the claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs. 11,83,928/- as against Rs. 9,61,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. There will be an enhancement of Rs. 2,22,928/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the cross objectors inter alia contended and substantiated that the direction issued by the Tribunal to the insurer to indemnify the award amount is just and proper and it is issued after, appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record. As on the date of accident policy was in force and it is not disputed by the insurer. Therefore, the Tribunal is justified in issuing direction to the insurer 10 indemnify the award amount. The claimants being third party should not be deprived from the legitimate entitlement of compensation on account of non-production of permit either by the owner or by the driver of the offending vehicle. This aspect is rightly looked into by the Tribunal in issuing direction to the insurer to indemnify the award amount. Therefore, interference by this Court is not called for.
After going through the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties, it emerges that, the reasoning given by the Tribunal at Para Nos. 17, 18 and 19 of the judgment the Tribunal is justified in issuing direction to the insurer to indemnify the award amount and we do not find any error or irregularity committed by the Tribunal. Therefore, there is no substance in the submission and the ground taken by the appellant-insurer in the memorandum of appeal and the same is rejected. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case as referred above, the instant appeal filed by the insurer is dismissed as devoid of merits and the cross-objection filed by the cross objectors is allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 02.02.2011 passed in MVC No. 527/2009 on the file of the District Judge, Addl. MACT-II, Fast Track Court-I, Shimoga is hereby modified by awarding additional compensation of Rs. 2,22,928/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
The appellant-insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 2,22,928/- with interest at 9% 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. 1,50,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank, in the name of 1st claimant 1st cross objector for a period of ten years and renewable for another five years, with liberty to her to withdraw the periodical interest accrued on it.
The remaining Rs. 72,928/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the 1st claimant, immediately, on deposit by the appellant-insurer.
The amount in deposit by the appellant-insurer shall be transferred to the jurisdictional Tribunal forthwith.
In view of disposal of the main matter on merit, the relief sought in IA No. 1/2011 filed by the appellant, does not survive for consideration. Hence the same is disposed of as having become infructuous.
Draw the award, accordingly.