AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil, J.—This. appeal by the claimant is directed against the judgment and award dated 9th November 2011, passed in MVC No. 156/2011, by the Senior Civil Judge, Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Holalkere, (for short, ''Tribunal'') for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 4,11,000/- awarded in favour of the claimants as against their claim for Rs. 33,00,000/-, is inadequate. The facts in brief are that, the claimant is the wife of the deceased Kampalappa. She filed the claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that, at about 12:40 P.M. on 08-05-2010, when the deceased Kampalappa was going by walk in front of the forest office at Holalkere town, the driver of Mini Lorry bearing Registration No. KA-01/C-6772, came at a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased, due to which the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same at Government Hospital at Holalkere.
It is the case of the appellant that, the deceased was aged about 53 years and doing agriculture and also business, earning a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month and was hale and healthy prior to the accident. On account of the untimely and unnatural death of the deceased, the appellant/wife has lost the life partner apart from social, financial and moral security and therefore, they have to be compensated reasonably.
On account of the death of the deceased, the appellant 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 9th November, 2011. 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. 4,11,000/- 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 appellant is 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 appellant and also the Insurer, for quite some time.
Learned counsel appearing for claimant/appellant vehemently submitted that, the Tribunal grossly erred in taking the income of the deceased at only Rs. 3,000/- per month, when in fact, the deceased was earning more than Rs. 10,000/- per month, by agriculture and also other business. But, disbelieving the same, the Tribunal, without any basis has assessed the income of the deceased at only Rs. 3,000/- per month, which cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be re-assessed. Therefore, he submitted that, reasonable compensation may be awarded both towards loss of dependency as also towards conventional heads by re-assessing the monthly income of deceased, by modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal.
As against this, learned counsel appearing for Insurer vehemently submitted that the compensation awarded by Tribunal is after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file. Further, he submitted that the Tribunal is justified in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/-, for the reason that the deceased was aged about 53 years and the dependent is the wife. Therefore, 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 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 Kampalappa. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was aged about 53 years and doing agriculture and also business. It is stated that he was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. But, to substantiate the same, the appellant has not produced any credible documentary evidence. 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 2010 and the deceased was aged about 53 years and had rich experience in agriculture and also doing business. Therefore, having regard to the age, avocation and also the year of accident, we reassess the income of the deceased at Rs. 5,000/- per month. The only claimant is the wife. Therefore, since the deceased was a married person, we deduct 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased. Accordingly, If 1/3rd (i.e. Rs. 1,666/-) is deducted from Rs. 5,000/- towards his personal expenses, the net income would be Rs. 3,334/- per month. Further, it is stated that the deceased was aged about 53 years as on the date of accident. Therefore, for the said age, the proper multiplier applicable is ''11'' as per the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, as rightly adopted by Tribunal. Thus, the compensation towards loss of dependency would work out to Rs. 4,40,088/- (i.e. Rs. 3,334/- x 12 x ''11'') as against Rs. 4,11,600/- awarded by Tribunal.
Further, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we award Rs. 45,000/- towards conventional heads, viz. loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, loss of estate and transportation of dead body and funeral expenses as per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma''s case (supra) as against Rs. 60,000/- awarded by Tribunal.
Thus, the total compensation payable to claimants works out to Rs. 4,85,088/- as against Rs. 4,11,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. There would be enhancement of compensation by a sum of Rs. 74,088/- with interest at 8% per annum, 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 appellant is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 9th November 2011, passed in MVC No. 156/2011, by the Senior Civil Judge, Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Holalkere, is hereby modified, awarding a sum of Rs. 4,85,088/- as against Rs. 4,11,000/ -awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at 8% per annum on the entire compensation, from the date of petition till the date of realization. Thus, there would be enhancement of compensation by a sum of Rs. 74,088/- with 8% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, excluding interest for the delayed period of 253 days in filing the appeal.
The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 74,088/-, with interest thereon at 8% per annum, excluding interest for the delayed period of 253 days in filing the appeal, 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. 50,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the name of appellant -wife of deceased, in Fixed Deposit, in any scheduled/ Nationalized Bank, for a period of five years, renewable by another five years, with liberty reserved to her to withdraw the periodical interest.
Remaining sum of Rs. 24,088/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the appellant, immediately.
Office to draw award accordingly.