Munishamigowda and Saraswathamma vs Naveen Kumar

N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the claimants is directed against the judgment and award dated 27th March 2008, passed in MVC No. 6177/2007, by the XVIII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-4, Bangalore (SCCH-4), (for short, ''Tribunal'') for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 2,94,000/- awarded in favour of the claimants as against their claim for Rs. 10,00,000/-, is inadequate. The facts in brief are that, the claimants are the parents of deceased M. Manjunath. They filed the claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that at about 7:30 P.M., on 05-04-2007, when the deceased M. Manjunath was proceeding on a Motor cycle bearing Registration No. KA-53/J-1016 as a pillion rider on NH-4 i.e. Bangalore-Kola Road, the rider of the said vehicle was riding the same slowly cautiously and on the correct side of the road by following the traffic rules and regulations. When the said vehicle reached near MVJ College, Dandupalya, at that time, a Tata Mobile Vehicle, bearing Registration No. KA-08/851, which was proceeding in a rash and negligent manner, lost control and due to high speed, dashed against the motor cycle, in which the deceased was riding pillion. Due to the impact, deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries and was immediately shifted to Hospital, but unfortunately, he succumbed to the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident, on 13-04-2007, after nearly ten days of treatment.

It is the case of the appellants that, the deceased was aged about 27 years and working as a Technical Assistant at N.C.N. Technology Factory, Mahadevapura Industrial Estate, earning a sum of Rs. 8,000/- per month and was hale and healthy prior to the accident. On account of the untimely death of the deceased M. Manjunath, the claimants/appellants have lost the love and affection, social and financial security and they are also deprived of seeing the future progress of their son and therefore, they have to be compensated reasonably.

On account of the death of the deceased M. Manjunath, the appellants filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, seeking compensation against the respondent. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 27th March, 2008. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, awarding a sum of Rs. 2,94,000/- under different heads, with 6% interest per annum, from the date of petition till the date of payment. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants are in appeal before this Court, seeking enhancement of compensation.

I have gone through the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal and heard learned counsel appearing for appellants and learned counsel appearing for respondent, for quite some time.

Learned counsel appearing for appellants, at the outset submitted that the Tribunal grossly erred in assessing the income of the deceased at only Rs. 3,000/- per month. The same is on the lower side and liable to be re-assessed as the appellant have produced the salary certificate issued by NCN Technologies at Ex. P11, wherein it is stated that the deceased was drawing salary of Rs. 8,000/- per month. The said documentary evidence is totally disbelieved by the Tribunal on the ground that the author of the said document is not examined. Mere non-examination of the witness cannot take away the legitimate entitlement of the appellants on account of the death of the deceased in the road traffic accident. He submitted that the deceased was aged about 27 years and working in NCN Technologies Factory as Technical Assistant and the accident occurred during 2007. Therefore, the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal is liable to be modified by enhancing the compensation towards loss of dependency as also conventional heads.

Further, so far as the compensation awarded towards medical expenses is concerned, he submitted that as per Ex. P10 series, the appellants have produced the prescriptions and bills for a sum of Rs. 1,52,270/-. But, the Tribunal has erred in awarding only a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on the ground that the bill produced at Sl. No. 45 does not bear the seal and signature or name of the Hospital and even there is no proof for the payment of the said bill amount. If that is the case, then, the Tribunal, at least could have awarded a sum of Rs. 69,240/-, after deducting the said amount from Rs. 1,52,270/-. Therefore, the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal is liable to be modified.

As against this, learned counsel appearing for respondent sought to justify the impugned judgment and award stating that the same is passed after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file and that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased having regard to her age, avocation and the year of accident. Hence, interference in the same is not called for.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, and after careful perusal of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the only point that arise for my consideration in this appeal is,

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

The undisputed facts of the case are, occurrence of accident and the resultant death of the deceased. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was aged about 27 years and working as a Technical Assistant at N.C.N. Technologies. It is stated that he was earning a sum of Rs. 8,000/- per month as per Ex. P11. But, to substantiate the same, the appellants have not examined the author of the said document nor produced any credible documentary evidence such as bank statement etc. But, it can be seen that the Tribunal is also not justified in assessing the income of the deceased at only Rs. 3,000/- per month. The same is on the lower side and needs to be re-assessed. The accident is of the year 2007. Therefore, having regard to the age, avocation, number of dependents and also the year of accident coupled with the salary Certificate at Ex. P11, I re-assess the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,000/- per month instead of Rs. 3,000/-, to meet the ends of justice. The deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are his parents. Therefore, having regard to the fact that the deceased was a bachelor, I deduct 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased, as per the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma''s Case (2009 ACJ 1298). Accordingly, If 50% (i.e. Rs. 2,000/-) is deducted from Rs. 4,000/- towards his personal expenses, the net income would be Rs. 2,000/- per month. The deceased was a bachelor and therefore, the age of the younger parent is to be taken into consideration. In this case, the younger parent, mother, is stated to be aged about 45 years as on the date of accident. Therefore, the proper multiplier applicable is ''14'' as rightly adopted by Tribunal. Thus, the compensation towards loss of dependency would work out to Rs. 3,36,000/- (i.e. Rs. 2,000/- x 12 x ''14'') as against Rs. 2,34,000/- awarded by Tribunal.

Further, the Tribunal has erred in awarding only a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards conventional heads. The same is on the lower side. As per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma''s case (supra), I award a sum of Rs. 45,000/- towards conventional heads, such as loss of estate, loss of love and affection and transportation and funeral expenses as against Rs. 10,000/- awarded by Tribunal.

10." Further, it should be noted that the deceased survived for a period of nearly ten days before succumbing to grievous injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. During this treatment period, the appellants would have spent reasonable sum towards medical expenses apart from conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges. The appellants have produced medical bills worth Rs. 1,52,270/-. But, the Tribunal has disbelieved one bill, amounting to Rs. 83,030/- at Sl. No. 45, on the ground that it does not bear the seal and signature or name of the Hospital and even there is no proof for the payment of the said bill amount. The said reasoning is just and proper. Accordingly, after deducting the said sum, the appellants are entitled to Rs. 69,240/-. But, the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards medical expenses including conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges. Therefore, having regard to the totality of the case on hand and the fact that the appellants would have spent reasonable sum during the period of treatment towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges apart from medical expenses and other incidental expenses, I deem it fit and proper to award a sum of Rs. 69,240/-, rounded off to Rs. 70,000/- towards medical expenses including conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges as against Rs. 50,000/- awarded by Tribunal. Thus, the total compensation would work out to Rs. 4,51,000/- as against Rs. 2,94,000/- awarded by Tribunal. There would be enhancement of compensation by a sum of Rs. 1,57,000/-. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the appeal filed by appellants is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 27th March 2008, passed in MVC No. 6177/2007, by the XVIII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-4, Bangalore (SCCH-4), is hereby modified, awarding additional compensation of a sum of Rs. 1,57,000/- with interest at 6% per annum on the enhanced sum, from the date of petition till the date of realization, excluding interest for the delayed period of 158 days in filing the appeal.

The Respondent is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,57,000/-, with interest thereon at 6% per annum, within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment, excluding interest for the delayed period of 158 days in filing the appeal.

Immediately on such deposit by the Respondent, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- each with proportionate interest shall be invested in Fixed Deposit in the name of each of appellant Nos. 1 and 2, for a period of five years, renewable for five years, with liberty reserved to them to withdraw their respective periodical interest.

Remaining sum of Rs. 57,000/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of both the appellants, in equal proportion, immediately.

Office to draw award, accordingly.