Nagarathnamma and Others vs The Managing Director, K.S.R.T.C.

P.D. Waingankar, J.—Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by MACT-X and Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tumkur, this appeal is preferred by the claimants.

The brief facts which gave rise to this appeal are as under:-

One Honnappa died in a motor vehicle accident leaving behind the appellants-claimants as legal heirs being wife and children. On 30.3.2013 at about 6.50 a.m., Honnappa was proceeding on TVS Moped bearing registration No. KA-52-H-519 near Nanjundeshwara Hotel, Tumkur. While he was taking a turn by putting on indicator, a KSRTC bus bearing registration No. KA-18-F-587 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two wheeler of Honnappa, as a result of the impact, Honnappa sustained grievous injuries. While undergoing treatment, he succumbed to the injuries. His wife and children filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act claiming compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- from the KSRTC, on the ground that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the KSRTC bus by its driver. The claim petition was opposed by the respondent-KSRTC. It came up for consideration before the tribunal and the tribunal by taking the income of the deceased as Rs. 5,000/- p.m. and by deducting 1/3rd towards ''personal and living expenses of the deceased'', having regard to the number of dependents, awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,80,000/- towards ''loss of dependency''. Further, the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards ''transportation of dead body'', Rs. 10,000/- towards ''funeral expenses'', Rs. 10,000/- towards ''loss of consortium'', Rs. 10,000/- towards ''loss of love and affection'' and Rs. 10,000/- towards ''loss of estate''. Thus, the tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 3,30,000/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Being dis-satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants have presented this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

We have heard both the learned counsel appearing for the appellants-claimants and the respondent-KSRTC. Perused the records.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants-claimants would submit that the income of the deceased taken at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- p.m. and interest at 6% awarded by the tribunal is on the lower side having regard to the fact that the accident had occurred in the year 2013. It is also submitted that the amount awarded under other heads is also on the lower side and it requires to be enhanced substantially.

Per-contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-KSRTC submits that the tribunal on proper appreciation of evidence has rightly determined the compensation under the head ''loss of dependency'' and all other heads and therefore no interference is called for by this Court. In other words, learned counsel appearing for the respondent sought for dismissal of the appeal.

Having heard both the learned counsel and upon perusal of the material placed on record, what emerges is that the accident, death of deceased Honnappa in the accident is not in dispute; that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of KSRTC bus by its driver is also not in dispute. Since KSRTC has not preferred appeal, the dispute is with regard to the income of the deceased taken by the tribunal. The claimant-wife of deceased PW-1-Nagarathnamma in her evidence has stated that the deceased was an agriculturist and also doing milk vending business and in order to show the same, the claimants produced RTC extracts as per Ex-P series. However, the tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- p.m., which is definitely on the lower side. Having regard to the fact that the accident had occurred in the year 2013 and the deceased was an agriculturist and that he was maintaining his wife and children, we deem it just and proper to take the income of the deceased at Rs. 8,000/- p.m. The tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3rd of the income towards ''personal and living expenses of the deceased''. If 1/3rd is deducted from Rs. 8,000/- p.m., ''loss of dependency'' per month comes to Rs. 5,334/-. The tribunal has rightly taken multiplier as ''9'' having regard to the age of the deceased. In that case, ''loss of dependency'' comes to Rs. 5,76,072/- as against Rs. 2,80,000/- determined by the tribunal. Further, the amount awarded by the Tribunal under all other heads is also on the lower side. As such, we are inclined to award a sum of Rs. 1.00 lakh towards ''loss of consortium''. Rs. 75,000/- towards ''loss of love and affection'' at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- to each of the claimants, Rs. 25,000/- towards ''loss of estate'' and Rs. 25,000/- towards ''transportation of dead body and funeral expenses''. Thus the appellants-claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 8,01,072/-. By deducting a sum of Rs. 2,80,000/- compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant/claimants are held to be entitled for Rs. 5,21,072/- as enhanced compensation over the above the compensation awarded by the tribunal. Further, the tribunal awarded interest at the rate of 6% p.a. though the accident had occurred in the year 2013. The Apex Court and various High Courts are awarding interest at the rate of 9%. Therefore, we deem it just and proper to award interest at the rate of 9% on enhanced compensation from the date of petition till the date of realization.

Accordingly, we pass the following:-

The appeal is allowed-in-part. The Judgment and award dated 22.11.2014 passed in MVC No. 698/2013 on the file of the MACT-X and Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tumkur, stands modified awarding enhanced compensation of Rs. 5,21,072/- over and above the compensation awarded by the tribunal together with 9% interest per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of petition till the date of realization.

The apportionment and release of the enhanced compensation amount shall be in the same proportion as ordered by the tribunal.

Respondent-Corporation is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of the Judgment.

Office to draw award, accordingly.