AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the appellant/Insurer is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 06.11.2009 passed in MVC No. 3771/2008 on the file of III Additional Judge & Member, MACT, Bangalore, (for short ''Tribunal''), for modification of the same. The Tribunal by its judgment and award has awarded a sum of Rs. 17,00,000/- under different heads with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, as against the claim of the claimants for a sum of Rs. 52,00,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased Sri. T.H. Ramesh, in the road traffic accident.
In brief, the facts of the case are:
The claimants are the wife, son and parents of the deceased. They filed a claim petition before the Tribunal u/s 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation on account of the death of the deceased, contending that, on 29.1.2008 at about 9.30 p.m. deceased was standing on the left side of Hebbal Ring Road, in front of Hebbal park, Bangalore, along with one Chandru just rear side of his Tempo bearing No. KA.04.9572 which axel of front wheel was broken and they parked their tempo on the left side of the road by using parking light signal and they also put stones and green branches of tree on the said road and waiting for arrival of the Mechanic. At that time, the driver of the Lorry bearing No. TN.33.AW.8389 came with high speed in a rash and negligent manner, and dashed against the deceased and one Chandru. Due to which, they fell down and Chandru died on the spot and deceased sustained multiple grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately, he was shifted to Baptist Hospital, Hebbal for necessary treatment, but he died on the same day.
It is the further case of the claimants that, deceased was aged about 32 years, hale and healthy prior to the accident and earning Rs. 40,000/- per month by self employment and contributing the same to the welfare of the family. Due to his untimely death, claimants were put to great loss and hardship, apart from mental shock and agony.
The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, in turn, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and other material available on file, has allowed the said claim petition in part, awarding the compensation of Rs. 17,00,000/- under different heads with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the Insurer has presented this appeal.
The submission of the learned counsel Sri. A.N. Krishnaswamy, appearing for the appellant, is that, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of dependency is dis-proportionate to the income of the deceased and the Tribunal has erred in not fixing the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, since there is a negligence on the part of the deceased, as he was standing behind the vehicle along with his friend on the road itself. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be modified by reducing the compensation and by fixing reasonable contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.
As against this, learned counsel for the claimants, inter-alia, contended and submitted that, the Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on file, taking into consideration the age occupation and the year of the accident, and considering that dependants are his wife and children, has justified in awarding the compensation under different heads, which is just and reasonable and therefore it does not call for interference. Further, he submitted that, the submission of the learned counsel appearing for appellant that Tribunal has erred in not fixing the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased cannot be sustained and is liable to be rejected, on the ground that, the LRs of the deceased, Chandru, who died in the same accident have filed M.F.A. No. 1235/2011 and which was disposed of by this Court on 8.12.2010, fixing the entire negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and in the said case, the Insurer has also indemnified the award amount. Nor the appellant has made out any good grounds to consider the relief sought in this appeal. Therefore, he prayed that the appeal filed by the Insurer may be dismissed.
After hearing the learned counsel appearing for both the parties, after careful perusal of the material available on record at threadbare, including the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, it can be seen that, the occurrence of the accident and the resultant death of the deceased are not in dispute. Further, it is not in dispute that, deceased was aged about 32 years and the dependants are his wife, son and parents and deceased was an income tax assessee and the claimants have produced the Income Tax returns from 2002-03 to 2007-08. Further, it emerges that, the Tribunal, after assessing the oral and documentary evidence available on file, has justified in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 11,500/- per month, after deducting 1/4th towards his personal expenses since there are four claimants, and by adopting multiplier of ''16'' since the deceased was aged about 32 years, has awarded a sum of Rs. 16,56,000/- towards loss of dependency, Rs. 4,000/- towards medical expenses as per medical bills produced by the claimants, Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 10,000/- towards funeral expenses and in all Rs. 17,00,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its deposit, after assigning valid reasons. The said compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. We do not find any error much less material irregularity in the same and therefore, it does not call for interference.
The submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurer that, the Tribunal has erred in not fixing the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased cannot be accepted and is liable to be rejected, for the reason that, the Tribunal, after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, has recorded the finding of fact in paras 11 and 12 of its judgment stating that, on account of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle, deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. Further, as rightly pointed out by the claimants, in connected appeal, the Insurer has indemnified the award amount and hence, the question of considering this aspect again does not arise at all. Nor we find any substance in the said submission. Hence, the above submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is liable to be rejected and accordingly, it is rejected. For the foregoing reasons,, the appeal filed by the appellant/Insurer is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
The Registry is directed to transfer the amount deposited by the appellant/Insurer and the original records to the jurisdictional Tribunal, forthwith
In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the prayer sought by the appellant in I.A. No. III/2013 does not survive for consideration. Hence, it is disposed off as having become infructuous.