Nagarathnamma and Others vs The Managing Director, BMTC

N.K. Patil, J.—These two appeals respectively by the claimants and by the Corporation are directed against the same impugned judgment and award dated 23/09/2013, passed in MVC No. 185/2012, by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ramanagara, (hereinafter referred to as ''Tribunal'' for short).

The Tribunal, by its judgment and award, has awarded a sum of Rs. 13,46,000/- as against the claim made by the claimants for a sum of Rs. 75,00,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased Sri. Siddalingachar, with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the claimants, have filed an appeal for enhancement of compensation, on the ground that the compensation awarded is inadequate and whereas, the Corporation has filed an appeal, on the ground that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on account of the death of the deceased is on the higher side and disproportionate to his source of income and therefore, it is liable to be reduced.

In brief, the facts of the case are:

"Claimants are the wife and children of the deceased. That on 13.4.2012 at about 9.00 p.m. deceased was proceeding on his Active Honda Motor cycle bearing Reg. No. KA.02.SJ.4346 and when he came near Citizen Auto Tinker work shop on Parvathipuram-Kondaji Basappa Road, from Basappa Circle towards Shivashankara Circle of Chamarajpet, at that time, the driver of BMTC bus bearing Reg. No. KA.01.F.8637 came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed from backside and dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased. Due to which, deceased fell down and the said bus passed on him and he died at the spot itself. Immediately, he was shifted to Bangalore Victoria Hospital for postmortem. On account of the death of the deceased, claimants have filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation against the Corporation."

It is the further case of the claimants that, deceased was aged about 62 years, hale and healthy prior to the accident, retired Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, getting the pension of Rs. 10,080/- per month and also getting the salary of Rs. 6,501/- per month from Shriram Chits Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore, as he was working as Recovery officer and looking after the welfare of the family. Due to his untimely death, claimants being his wife and children have suffered lot of pain and agony, apart from financial loss as they have lost their bread earner.

The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, in turn, after assessing the oral and documentary evidence and other materials available on file, and by assigning valid reasons has allowed the claim petition in part, awarding the compensation of Rs. 13,46,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of deposit, with a direction to the Corporation to deposit the entire amount.

Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, claimants and the Corporation have presented these appeals, seeking appropriate reliefs, as stated supra.

We have heard learned counsel appearing for the claimants and the learned counsel appearing for Corporation at considerable length of time.

The submission of the learned counsel Sri. K.P. Bhuvan, appearing for the claimants, at the outset, is that, the Tribunal has erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards loss of dependency and what is awarded is inadequate and it requires to be enhanced reasonably. Further, he submits that, the compensation awarded towards conventional heads is also on the lower side and is liable to be enhanced reasonably and that the rate of interest awarded is on the lower side and is liable to be awarded atleast at 9 to 10% p.a. in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court and this Court since the accident is of the year 2012. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified by awarding reasonable compensation.

Learned counsel Sri. K. Nagaraja, appearing for the Corporation, vehemently submitted that, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of dependency is on higher side and disproportionate to the source of the income, on the ground that, as per the case of the claimants, deceased was aged about 62 years, Retired Assistant Sub Inspector of police and drawing the pension of Rs. 10,000/- per month and he was also drawing the salary of Rs. 6,501/- per month as he was working as Recovery Officer in Shriram Chits Pvt. Ltd., as per Ex. P10 and out of pension of Rs. 10,000/- per month, claimant No. 1 is getting a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month as family pension and therefore, he submitted that, loss due to the death of deceased is Rs. 5,000/- towards pension and Rs. 6,501/- per month as he was working as recovery Officer in Shriram Chits Pvt. Ltd. and in total Rs. 11,500/- per month and after deducting 50% towards personal and living expenses of the deceased as all the children are major as on the date of the accident and applying appropriate multiplier of 7'' in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, since he was aged about 62 years instead of ''9'' adopted by the Tribunal, loss of dependency is liable to be reduced reasonably. Further, he has submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards conventional heads is just and proper and therefore, it does not call for interference. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified.

After careful consideration of the submission of learned counsel for both parties, after perusal of the material available on file, including the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the points that arise for our consideration are:

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

The occurrence of the accident and the resultant death of the deceased are not in dispute. Further it is not in dispute that, claimants are the wife and children of the deceased and he was aged about 62 years, retired Assistant Sub Inspector of Police and getting the pension of Rs. 10,000/- per month and also getting the salary of Rs. 6,501/- per month as per Ex. P10, as he was working as Recovery Officer in Shriram Chits Pvt. Ltd.

As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation, out of the pension of Rs. 10,000/- per month, claimant No. 1 being the wife of the deceased was getting 50% of the same as pension i.e. Rs. 5,000/- per month and as per Ex. P10, deceased was earning Rs. 6,501/- per month and therefore, the total loss to the family on account of the death of the deceased would be Rs. 11,500/- per month. There is some substance in the said submission. Hence, taking into consideration the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation, we re-assess the loss to the family at Rs. 5,000/- per month from pension and Rs. 6,501/- per month as per Ex. P10 and in all Rs. 11,501/- per month and it is rounded off to Rs. 11,500/- per month as against Rs. 16,000/- per month assessed by the Tribunal. Out of which, if 1/3rd ( Rs. 3,833/-) is deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased instead of 1/4th as done by the Tribunal since the children are majors, the contribution of the deceased to the family comes to Rs. 7,667/- per month. The proper multiplier applicable is 7'' since deceased was aged about 62 years instead of ''9'' adopted by the Tribunal. Therefore, we award a sum of Rs. 6,44,028/- ( Rs. 7,667 x 12 x 7) towards loss of dependency instead of Rs. 12,96,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court and this Court, we award a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 1,25,000/- towards loss of love and affection at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- each to the claimant Nos. 1 to 5, Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 25,000/- towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses.

Regarding rate of interest, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, 6% interest per annum awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side, since the accident is of the year 2012. In the light of the judgment of Apex Court and this Court we award the rate of interest at 9% per annum on the entire compensation instead of 6% awarded by the Tribunal.

In all, the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 9,19,028/- as against Rs. 13,46,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. There would be a reduction of Rs. 4,26,972/-.

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the claimants and the appeal filed by the Corporation are allowed in part.

The impugned judgment and award dated 23/09/2013, passed in MVC No. 185/2012, by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ramanagara, is hereby modified, reducing the compensation from Rs. 13,46,000/- to Rs. 9,19,028/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.

The Corporation is directed to deposit the remaining amount with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization after deducting what ever amount paid by it before the jurisdictional Tribunal within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and award.

The apportionment of the compensation amount amongst the claimants and the manner of disbursement shall be proportionately reduced to the extent of the reduction of the compensation made by this Court.

The amount deposited by the Corporation shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal, immediately.

Office to draw the award, accordingly.

Learned counsel Sri. K. Nagaraja, is permitted to file vakalath in M.F.A. No. 2940/2014.