Nagamma and Others vs Ameer Ahemed and Others

N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the claimants is directed against the judgment and award dated 24th January 2013, passed in MVC No. 7957/2010, by the XII Additional Small Causes Judge and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-8), (for short, ''Tribunal'') for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 8,84,000/- awarded in favour of the claimants as against their claim for Rs. 70,00,000/-, is inadequate.

The facts in brief are that, the claimants are the wife, two minor children and parents of the deceased N. Revanna. They filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that, at about 2:05 P.M, on 20-09-2010, when the deceased was riding his motor cycle bearing Registration No. KA-02/EN-2696, on Bangalore-Mysore Road, in front of Nanjundeshwara Bar on Nayandahalli, a Lorry bearing Registration No. KA-01/C-1323, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came and dashed against the deceased. Due to the impact, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and was immediately shifted to BGS Global Hospital, Bangalore for treatment. But, unfortunately, in spite of the best treatment, he succumbed to the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident, on 24-09-2010 at about 6:22 P.M. after nearly four days.

It is the case of the appellants that, the deceased was aged about 35 years, an agriculturist and also working as a supervisor at Sri Ganesh Screens, Bangalore, earning a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month and hale and healthy prior to the accident. On account of the untimely death of the deceased, the appellants have lost the love and affection, inspiration and guidance, apart from social, financial and moral support and therefore, they have to be compensated reasonably.

On account of the death of the deceased, the appellants filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, seeking compensation against the respondents. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 24th January, 2013. 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. 8,84,000/-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.

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

Learned counsel appearing for claimants/appellants, Shri. Jagadish G. Kumbar appearing for Shri. R. Chandrashekar vehemently submitted at the outset that, the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at only Rs. 4,000/- per month. To substantiate the same, he submitted that the deceased was aged about 35 years, working as Agriculturist and also working as Supervisor in a Private Company and hale and healthy prior to the accident. Therefore, he submitted that the monthly income of the deceased including future prospects may be re-assessed at least between Rs. 6,000/- and Rs. 7,000/- and 1/4th may be deducting considering the number of dependents and award reasonable compensation towards loss of dependency.

He further submitted that the compensation awarded by Tribunal towards conventional heads and the rate of interest awarded at 6% p.a. is also on the lower side and the same is liable to be modified by modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, in the light of the judgments of the Hon''ble Apex Court and this Court in catena of decisions.

As against this, learned counsel appearing for Insurer Shri. B. Pradeep sought to substantiate the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, stating that the compensation awarded by Tribunal is after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file and also taking into consideration the age, avocation and also the year of accident etc.. Therefore, interference in the same is not called for. However, he fairly submitted that reasonable compensation may be awarded towards conventional heads, in the light of the judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court and this Court in catena of decisions.

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 our consideration in this appeal is,

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

The undisputed facts of the case are, the occurrence of accident and the resultant death of the deceased N. Revanna. The claimants are none other than the wife, aged about 33 years, minor children aged about 13 years and 12 years, aged parents of 85 years and 78 years, as on the date of accident. The claimants have stated that the deceased was aged about 35 years. But, the Tribunal, after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, particularly Original Driving Licence produced at Ex. P13, has assessed the age of the deceased as 41 years. The same is accepted. It is stated that he was as agriculturist and also working as Supervisor. But, it should be seen that the income from agriculture continues to be there but there will be some loss towards supervision by the deceased. But, the monthly income of Rs. 4,000/- assessed by Tribunal is on the lower side and is liable to be re-assessed. The accident is of the year 2010 and the deceased was aged about 41 years. Therefore, having regard to the age, avocation and also the year of accident, coupled with the loss of supervisory charges, considering the documentary evidence, we re-assess the income of the deceased at Rs. 6,000/- per month, to meet the ends of justice. Further, as the dependents are five in number, we deduct 1/4th towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. Accordingly, If 1/4th (i.e. Rs. 1,500/-) is deducted from Rs. 6,000/- towards his personal and living expenses, the net income would be Rs. 4,500/- per month. Further, the Tribunal has assessed the age of the deceased as 41 years as on the date of accident. Therefore, for the said age, the proper multiplier applicable is ''14'' as per the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) ACJ 1298 : AIR 2009 SC 3104 : (2009) CLT 1055 : (2009) 6 JT 495 : (2009) 6 SCALE 129 : (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 5 SCR 1098 : (2009) 5 UJ 2280 : (2009) AIRSCW 4992 : (2009) 3 Supreme 487 as rightly adopted by Tribunal. Thus, the compensation towards loss of dependency would work out to Rs. 7,56,000/- (i.e. Rs. 4,500/- x 12 x''14'') as against Rs. 5,04,000/- awarded by Tribunal.

Further, the Tribunal has erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards conventional heads. In the light of the judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court and this Court in catena of decisions and also considering the fact that the wife aged about 33 years has lost the life companion at an young age, the minor children have lost the love and affection, special guidance and inspiration of their father and the aged parents have lost the security in their old age, we award a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium as against Rs. 10,000/-; Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of estate as against Rs. 10,000/-; Rs. 1,25,000/- towards loss of love and affection at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- to each claimant as against Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses as against Rs. 5,000/- awarded by Tribunal.

Further, it can be seen that the deceased survived for nearly four days before succumbing to the fatal injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. During this time, the claimants have spent huge sums towards medical expenses including conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges. Therefore, considering the medical bills and prescriptions and the number of days in the Hospital, we award a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- towards medical expenses including conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges and other incidental expenses as against Rs. 3,50,000/- awarded by Tribunal.

Thus, the total compensation payable to claimants works out to Rs. 14,31,000/- as against Rs. 8,84,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. There would be enhancement of compensation by a sum of Rs. 5,47,000/-.

Further, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel appearing for claimants, the rate of interest at 6% per annum awarded by Tribunal is on the lower side, as the accident has occurred on 20-09-2010. Therefore, as per the ratio of law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court and this Court in catena of decisions and also considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it fit and proper to award rate of interest at 8% per annum on the enhanced compensation, from the date of petition till the date of realization.

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 24th January 2013, passed in MVC No. 7957/2010, by the XII Additional Small Causes Judge and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-8), is hereby modified, awarding a sum of Rs. 14,31,000/- as against Rs. 8,84,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, from the date of petition till the date of realization. Thus, there would be enhancement of compensation by a sum of Rs. 5,47,000/- with 8% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 5,47,000/-, with interest thereon at 8% per annum, within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment.

Immediately on such deposit by the Insurance Company, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the name of first appellant -wife of deceased, in Fixed Deposit, in any scheduled/Nationalized/Grameena Bank, for a period of fifteen years, renewable by ten years, with liberty reserved to her to withdraw the periodical interest.

A sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- each with proportionate interest shall be invested in the names of second and third appellants - minor children of deceased, in Fixed Deposit, in any scheduled/Nationalized/Grameena Bank, till they attain the age of 30 years, with liberty reserved to appellant No. 1/natural guardian to withdraw the periodical interest for their welfare, till they attain the age of 21 years, and from 22 to 30 years, they are entitled to withdraw the interest periodically.

Remaining sum of Rs. 1,47,000/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the appellant Nos. 1, 4 and 5, in equal proportion, immediately.

Office to draw award, accordingly.

Shri. B. Pradeep, learned counsel is permitted to file vakalath on behalf of second respondent/Insurer, within four weeks from today.