Narasamma and Others vs Shamshudeen and Others

N.K. Patil, J.—These two appeals are by the claimants and Insurer being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award dated 15.10.2014 passed in MVC No. 233/2012 on the file of the Addl. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and Principal Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Ramanagara, (hereinafter referred to as ''Tribunal'' for short). By the impugned judgment, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 28,17,400/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.

It is the case of the claimants that the quantum of compensation and rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and requires enhancement. Whereas, it is the case of the appellant-insurer that the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of dependency is disproportionate to the income of the deceased and therefore, prays for reducing the same by modifying the impugned judgment and award.

Brief facts of the case are that appellant No. 1 is the wife and appellant Nos. 2 to 5 are children of the deceased late Venkataraju. They have filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, claiming compensation of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- on account of untimely death of deceased Venkataraju in a road traffic accident that occurred on 28.06.2012, at about 3.40 P.M. contending that when deceased was proceeding on a motorcycle bearing Reg. No. KA-04-ET-5547 on B.M. road in front of Janapadaloka, Ramanagara Taluk, at that time, the driver of Innova Car bearing Reg. No. KL-09-X-3553 came from Mysore side behind the vehicle of the deceased in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the vehicle of the deceased. Due to the impact, the deceased fell down from the motor cycle and sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. It is the case of the appellants that they have spent Rs. 2,00,000/- for funeral and ritual ceremony. The deceased was working as a Range Forest Officer at Ramanagara Range Forest area and getting a salary of Rs. 75,000/- per month. On account of untimely death of deceased, the wife has lost her companion and the children have lost the love and affection and inspiration and guidance of their father and there is total social and financial loss to the family. The deceased was the only earning member in the family and he used to spend entire amount for welfare of the family. Further, it is the case of the appellants that the two daughters are yet to be married and the son is a college going student. The entire family was depending upon the income of the deceased.

The Tribunal after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, has awarded a compensation of Rs. 28,17,400/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, both the claimants and insurer felt necessitated to file their respective appeals.

Shri S. Raju, learned Counsel for the claimants submitted at the outset that the Tribunal has committed error much less material irregularity in not awarding reasonable compensation towards conventional heads and what is awarded is inadequate. In the light of the catena of judgments of the Apex Court and this Court, reasonable compensation may be awarded towards loss of consortium, loss of estate etc. by modifying the impugned judgment and award. The deceased was the only earning member in the family. The wife has lost her soul-mate and the children have lost love and affection, inspiration and guidance of their father. He further submits that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is also on the lower side and it requires enhancement by modifying the impugned judgment and award.

As against this, learned Counsel appearing for the insurer vehemently submitted that the Tribunal has erred in adding 15% of the income towards future prospects. He further submitted that deceased was having another six years of service to attain superannuation and all the children are major as on the date of accident and not dependent upon the income of the deceased. The dependent is only the first appellant. Therefore, the Tribunal ought have deducted 1/3rd instead of 1/4th towards personal expenses and applying multiplier of 11 is also not justifiable. Therefore, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is required to be interfered with by modifying the impugned judgment and award.

After careful consideration of the submission of the learned Counsel for the claimants and learned Counsel for Insurer, after perusal of the impugned judgment and award and after critical evaluation of the material available on record, the point that arise for consideration is:

Whether the claimants and insurer have made out a case for interference in the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal?

The occurrence of the accident resulting in death of deceased in a road traffic accident are not in dispute. Further, it is not in dispute that the deceased was working as a Range Forest Officer. The dependents are none other than the wife and children of the deceased. The deceased was drawing a salary of Rs. 24,000/- per month. The Tribunal after consideration of the judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court reported in Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, , added another 15% towards future prospects of the deceased. Out of that, 1/4th is deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. Following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) & Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & another and taking the age of the deceased as 54 years for applying the multiplier 11, the Tribunal was justified in awarding Rs. 27,32,400-00 towards loss of dependency, Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 30,000/- towards loss of love, affection and estate and Rs. 30,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses, in all, Rs. 28,17,400/- by assigning valid and cogent reasons in paras 18 to 23 of its judgment. The reasoning assigned by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for interference. The ground taken by the appellant-insurer that Tribunal erred in adding 15% of the income towards future prospects cannot be accepted as the Insurer has not produced any material to show that two daughters are already married and staying with their family. The said ground cannot be accepted without producing any credible documents. After taking all these factors into consideration, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation towards loss of dependency and conventional heads and therefore, interference by this Court is uncalled for.

Accordingly, both the appeals filed by the claimants as well as the Insurer stand dismissed as devoid of merit.

The amount in deposit by the appellant-insurer in MFA No. 1815/2015 shall be transferred to the Tribunal immediately.