Narayanappa, N.N. Basavaraju and Renukamma vs Depot Manager, Divisional Controller and The Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation

N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the claimants is directed against the judgment and award dated 27th August 2011, passed in MVC No. 115/2010, by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC., Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Arasikere, for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 3,50,000/- awarded in favour of the claimants as against their claim for Rs. 31,30,000/-, is inadequate. The facts in brief are that, claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased late Yellamma. They filed the claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that at about 1:00 P.M., on 20-02-2010, when the deceased Yellamma was getting down from the Bus bearing Registration No. KA-13/F-1262, she met with an accident, on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the said Bus. Due to the impact, the deceased fell down from the Bus and sustained grievous injuries and was immediately admitted to J.C. Hospital, Arsikere and thereafter to Nagabhushan Hospital, Arsikere and thereafter as on the advise of Doctor, shifted to SSM Hospital, Hassan and subsequently to NIMHANs, Bangalore. But, unfortunately, she succumbed to the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident, in spite of the best treatment on 21-02-2010.

It is the case of the claimants that, the deceased was hale and healthy prior to the date of accident, which resulted in her death and on account of her untimely death, they have lost the source of income, apart from social and financial support permanently and therefore, they have to be compensated reasonably.

On account of the death of the deceased, the claimants filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of a sum of Rs. 31.30 lakhs against the Corporation. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 27th August, 2011. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition, awarding a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- under different heads, with 6% interest per annum, from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants are is in appeal before this Court, seeking enhancement of compensation.

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

Shri. Lokesh Kumar K.S., learned counsel appearing for appellants at the outset submitted that the Tribunal has grossly erred in not assessing the reasonable income of the deceased and the income assessed by Tribunal at Rs. 3,000/- per month is on the lower side and having regard to the year of accident being, 2010, and the age and avocation of the deceased, reasonable income may be re-assessed and reasonable compensation be awarded towards loss of dependency by adopting appropriate multiplier, taking the age of deceased and award reasonable compensation towards conventional heads also, by modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal.

As against this, learned counsel appearing for Corporation, inter alia contended and substantiated that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file. Hence, interference in the same is uncalled for.

Further, the submitted that in fact, the compensation awarded by Tribunal towards loss of dependency is on the higher side and liable to be reduced taking judicial note, by modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, the occurrence of accident and the resultant death of the deceased Yellamma in the road traffic accident is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that she was hale and healthy prior to the accident and the claimants are none other than the husband aged about 65 years and children aged about 34 years and 30 years and all the three are dependent on the income of the deceased. The said aspect of the matter has been rightly considered and appreciated by Tribunal and assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- and deducting 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased and adopting multiplier of 13 has awarded just and reasonable compensation of Rs. 3,12,000/- towards loss of dependency and Rs. 38,000/- towards conventional heads. The Tribunal has given a detailed reasoning for arriving at the said compensation at paragraphs 10 and 11 of its judgment. The same is after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file. Hence, interference in the impugned well considered judgment and award passed by Tribunal is uncalled for.

However, in the light of the submission of the learned counsel appearing for appellants, even if we assess the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,500/- or Rs. 5,000/- per month, and deduct 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased, taking the age of the husband, the appropriate multiplier would be 7'' and the loss of dependency would work out to Rs. 2,10,000/- and if we add Rs. 45,000/- towards conventional heads, the total compensation would in fact, work out to Rs. 2,55,000/-. But, in the instant case the Tribunal, after taking into consideration all the relevant aspects into consideration, has reasonably assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- per month and deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses and applying the multiplier, taking the age of the deceased, has awarded just and reasonable compensation towards loss of dependency as also under conventional heads. Hence, interference in the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal is uncalled for.

Having regard to the totality of the case on hand and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any error or material irregularity as such committed by the Tribunal in awarding the compensation towards loss of dependency as also under conventional heads nor the appellants have made out a case for enhancement. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the claimants is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. Accordingly, it is dismissed.

Office to draw award, accordingly.