Nagarathnamma vs Nagarathnamma

K.L. Manjunath, J.—These two appeals arise out of the judgment and award passed in MVC No. 2327 of 2007 dated 22-2-2010 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal & Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru. While MFA 223 of 2011 is filed by the claimants in the claim petition seeking for enhancement of compensation, MFA No. 6683 of 2010 is filed by the insurance company challenging the liability saddled on it by the tribunal. Therefore, these appeals are heard together and disposed of.

The admitted facts in these appeals are that: The claimants are the widow and unmarried daughter of one Nagaraj. According to the claimants, on 21-2-2007 at about 5.30 pm, when Nagaraj was proceeding on the TVS motorcycle bearing registration No TN-29 L-1848 along with one Jayapala Reddy, all of a sudden, tempo bearing registration No KA-03 A-4424 came from opposite direction in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle of Nagaraj. Due to the impact of the accident, Nagaraj sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. The deceased was aged about 45 years and was running a poultry shop. According to the claimants, he was earning a monthly income of Rs. 25,000/-.

A charge sheet was filed against the driver of the goods vehicle, which has been insured with the appellant-insurance company. The appellant-insurance company contended that the driver of the goods vehicle had no valid driving licence as on the date of accident and therefore the liability cannot be saddled on the insurance company. It was further contended that the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimants is on the higher side.

In order to prove their respective contentions, on behalf of the claimants, the widow of deceased was examined as PW1 and she relied upon ExP1 to 10. On behalf of the insurance company, one Ms Deepa was examined as RW1 and she relied upon Ex. R1 and 2. Ex. R1 is a copy of the driving licence of the driver of the goods vehicle and Ex. R2 is a copy of the insurance policy.

The tribunal, after considering the entire evidence let in by the parties, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the goods vehicle by its driver. The tribunal has also held that though the claimants claimed that the deceased was earning a monthly income of Rs. 25,000/-, they have failed to prove the same. Accordingly, the income of the deceased was fixed at Rs. 6,000/- per month and awarded a sum of Rs. 6,24,000/- towards loss of dependency and another sum of Rs. 25,000/- was awarded under conventional heads and thus in all a sum of Rs. 6,49,000/- was awarded as compensation.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we have to consider the following points in these appeals:

"i) Whether the tribunal is justified in fixing the liability on the insurance company?

ii) Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal requires to be enhanced or reduced?"

In so far as the first point is concerned, the driving licence of the driver of the goods vehicle is produced by the appellant-insurance company. The contention of the learned counsel for the insurance company before us is that the driver did not possess valid driving licence on the date of the accident. According to him, on the date of accident, the driving licence was not renewed and thus was not in force. Therefore, the liability cannot be saddled on the insurance company.

On a perusal of Ex. R1 driving licence, it is clear that the licence was issued to the driver on 15-7-1994, under which the driver was entitled to drive light motor vehicles. Later, with effect from 30-1-1996, he was also authorized to drive heavy transport vehicle and the same was valid up to 26-2-2010. He was also given badge No. 22156.

According to us, Ex. R1 clearly discloses that the driving licence was in force up to 26-2-2010 and therefore the tribunal was right in holding that the driver of the goods vehicle had a valid driving licence as on the date of accident. If the driving licence was granted to the driver to drive LMV with effect from 15-7-1994, a further authorization was given to him to drive HTV with effect from 30-1-1996 and both are valid up to 26-2-2010 and the accident was occurred on 21-2-2007, no court can hold that the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident did not possess a valid driving licence as on the date of the present accident. Accordingly, the first point is answered against the insurance company.

With regard to the second point, admittedly, the deceased was running a poultry shop, which is evidenced by Ex.P10 lease agreement. He was also owning a motorcycle. He was maintaining his wife and an unmarried daughter, who was aged 22 years as on the date of accident. When a person who was running a poultry shop and maintaining a motorcycle, the income of such person could not have been less than Rs. 8,000/- per month. Accordingly, we assess the notional income of the deceased at Rs. 8,000/- per month or Rs. 96,000/- per annum. After deducting one-third thereof towards personal expenditure, the loss of dependency has to be assessed at Rs. 64,000/- per annum. Considering the age of the deceased, the appropriate multiplier to be adopted is 13. Therefore, the loss of dependency is assessed at Rs. 8,32,000/-. In addition, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- under the conventional heads such as loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, loss of estate, transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 10,32,000/-.

In the result, MFA No. 223 of 2011 is allowed in part and the compensation awarded by the tribunal is enhanced from Rs. 6,49,000/- to Rs. 10,32,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of claim petition till date of realization. Out of the enhanced compensation, a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- with accrued interest shall be payable to the widow of the deceased and out of which 50% shall be kept in a fixed deposit in a nationalized bank for a period of five years and she is permitted to withdraw the periodical interest. The remaining enhanced amount shall be paid to the daughter of the deceased and out of which 50% shall be kept in a fixed deposit in a nationalized bank for a period of five years.

MFA No. 6683 of 2010 is dismissed.

The registry is directed to transmit the amount in deposit, if any, and records to the tribunal forthwith.