AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. Veerappa, J.—1. MFA No. 103454/2015 filed by the Insurance Company for reduction of the compensation, whereas MFA No. 103715/2015 filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation amount awarded in MVC No. 2557/2012 on the file of the I Additional District Jude and MACT-II, Belagavi, by the judgment and award dated 12.08.2015, granting the compensation amount of Rs. 18,36,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date petition till the date of realisation.
The claimants in MFA No. 103715/2015 filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, claiming a compensation of Rs. 27,00,000/- contending that the son of the 1st claimant and the brother of the claimant No. 2, namely Swapnil Indrajeet Jagatap was proceeding to Ramdurg driving the car bearing No. MH/24-C-5234 on Katkol-Ramdurg road on 28.09.2011. When he came within the limits of Halolli village at about 00.30 hours, a tractor bearing No. KA-29/T-9165 came from opposite side driven in a rash and negligent manner, the driver had lost control and came on the wrong side of the road and dashed against the car. Due to the impact, the driver of the car had sustained serious injuries to his spinal cord and head. He was shifted to Ramdurg Government Hospital and then to KLE Hospital, Belagavi. He was bedridden for about 1 1/2 months and had undergone several major operations. In spite of best medical treatment, he died in the hospital on 08.11.2011. At the time of death, the deceased was aged about 24 years and was looking after the family by carrying agricultural work by modern methods, growing cash crops and also preparing jiggery, thereby earning Rs. 4,00,000/- per annum. It was contended that, due to his untimely death, the claimants have sustained loss of dependency and the respondents 1 and 2 being the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation with interest.
During the pendency of the claim petition, respondent No. 3 - owner of the car was impleaded, but remained absent and was placed ex-parte. The respondent No. 1 - owner of the tractor, filed objections denying the plaint averments, and contended that on the date of accident, the driver of the tractor had valid and effective driving licence. He was driving the tractor in a moderate speed; the accident took place only due to negligence of the deceased; and hence no liability can be imposed over on the owner of the tractor; if the petitioners are entitled for compensation, the respondent No. 2 - insurer is liable to pay compensation, as the vehicle involved in the accident was duly insured. The respondent No. 2 - Insurance Company filed objections denying the petition averments and its liability to pay compensation and contended that the deceased was driving the car in a rash and negligent manner and he was not holding valid driving licence, as on the date of the accident and the car was not insured. The facts have been falsely involved in the alleged accident, colluding with the 1st respondent. There is no nexus between the injuries sustained in the said accident and the death of the car driver was not due to the accidental injuries, but it was due to some other reason or it was a natural death etc. Therefore, sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
"1) Whether petitioners prove that they are the legal heirs of deceased Swapnil S/o. Indrajeet Jagatap who died in the accident involved in this case?
2) Whether the death of the deceased Swapnil S/o. Indrajeet Jagatap is due to rash or negligent driving of the Tractor bearing No. KA-29/T-9165 as alleged?
3) Whether the respondent 2 proves that he is not liable to pay compensation on account of violation of policy conditions as contended?
4) What is the just and reasonable compensation for which the petitioner is entitle for? If so, from whom it is recoverable?
5) What is final award?"
In order to establish their claim, the claimants examined as P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked the documents Exs. P-1 to P-14. Respondents have not adduced any evidence, except production of Ex. R-1/the insurance policy.
After considering the entire material on record, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 18,36,000/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Hence, the Insurance Company filed M.F.A. No. 103454/2015 for reduction of the compensation and the claimants filed M.F.A. No. 103715/2015 by the claimants for further enhancement of the compensation.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
Shri Ravindra R. Mane, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company has contended that the Tribunal has granted exorbitant compensation towards loss of dependency without any basis. He further contended that the deceased was jointly holding agriculture land measuring about 13 acres with his married sister Sonah and the claimants. Without proper application of mind and without any basis, the Tribunal assessed income of the deceased at Rs. 8,000/- per month which is exorbitant and the Tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier as 18, considering the age of the deceased as bachelor, instead of applying the multiplier as 13, considering the age of the mother as 46 years, in view of the dictum of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and others v. Trilok Chandra and others reported in , 1996 4 SCC 362. He further contended that the Tribunal has erroneously deducted 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards the personal expenses instead of 50%. The Tribunal also awarded the compensation in respect of other heads which are also on higher side. Therefore, he sought to modify the judgment and award by allowing the appeal.
Per contra, Smt. Geeta KM. @ Pawar, learned counsel for the claimants has contended that the Tribunal has erred in deducting the average income of the deceased at Rs. 8,000/- per month, as against the yearly income of Rs. 4,00,000/- from agriculture. 50% on future prospectus has not been awarded in the present case and the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Munna Lal Jain and others v. Vipin Kumar Sharma and Ors. reported in , (2015) 6 SCC 347. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal in respect of other heads is very meager. Therefore, she sought for further enhancement.
I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record.
It is not in dispute that the deceased Swapnil Indrajeet Jagatap died on 08.11.2011 on account of a road accident occurred on 28.09.2011 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor bearing No. KA-29/T-9165. The claimants, who are mother and sister have examined as P.Ws.1 and 2 and stated on oath that the deceased was earning Rs. 4,00,000/- per year. Except producing Ex. P-8, 4 RTC extracts, the claimants have not produced any material that the deceased was earning Rs. 4,00,000/- per annum. Taking into consideration the age of the deceased as 24 years, the Tribunal considered the income of the deceased as Rs. 8,000/- and deducted 1/3rd. The said finding is recorded by the Tribunal is contrary to the dictum of the latest judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Munna Lal''s case stated supra, the Tribunal also not awarded 50% towards future prospectus and not deducted 50% towards the personal expenses of the deceased who was bachelor. Taking into consideration the age of the deceased and in the absence of any material for income of the deceased, the Tribunal ought to have taken the income of the deceased at Rs. 7,000/- and added 50% which came to Rs. 10,500/- and the Tribunal has to deduct 50% towards the personal expenses of the deceased which comes to Rs. 5,250/-. The Tribunal considered the multiplier as 18 by taking into consideration the age of the deceased as 24 years, the same is in accordance with law. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Munna lal has held that the multiplier should be considered taking the age of the deceased and not the age of the younger age of the parents. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that taking the age of the mother, the multiplier would be 13, cannot be accepted. Taking into consideration the age of the deceased as 24 years, the Tribunal has applied the multiplier as 18 and the same is in accordance with law laid down in Munna Lal''s case stated supra. Therefore, the loss of dependency is calculated as follows:
(Rs. 5,250/- X 12 X 18 = 11,34,000/-)
It is also not in dispute that the appellant/Insurance Company has not adduced any evidence except producing Ex. R-1, the Insurance Policy which was in force, as on the date of the accident. Considering, the entire material on record, both oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and material documents Exs. P-1 to P-14, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal requires for modification.
On re-assessing the entire material on record, the claimants are entitled to the compensation as under:
The accident took place on 28.09.2011 leaving behind the young aged mother, who lost her husband and the sister aged about 21 years, who was a student. Taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is appropriate to grant 7% of the interest on the compensation awarded. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 16,72,684/- with 7% interest from the date of petition till the date of realization.
Accordingly, MFA No. 103454/2015 filed by the Insurance Company is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award passed by the I Additional District Judge & Member of MACT II, Belagavi, dated 12.08.2015 made in MVC No. 2557/2012 is modified and the claimants are entitled to a sum Rs. 16,72,684/- with 7% interest from the date of petition till the date of realization.
MFA No. 103715/2015 filed by the claimants claiming further enhancement of compensation mainly on the ground that the deceased was earning Rs. 4,00,000/- per annum. Except 4 RTC extracts, the claimants have not produced any material documents to prove that he was earning Rs. 4,00,000/- per annum. The oral evidence also does not reflect that he was earning Rs. 4,00,000/-. In the absence of any material on record, this Court while deciding the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is of the considered opinion that Rs. 7,000/-has to be taken as income per month and 50% to be added which comes to Rs. 10,500/- and 50% should be deducted which comes to Rs. 5,250/- and if the multiplier 18 is applied, the loss of dependency would come to Rs. 11,34,000/- (5,250/- X 12 X 18) and accordingly, reassessing the entire material on record, this Court awarded total compensation of Rs. 16,72,684/- with interest at 7% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.
Since this Court has reduced compensation in the appeal filed by the Insurance Company, the question of enhancing the compensation in the appeal filed by the claimants does not arise.
In the circumstances, MFA No. 103715/2015 filed by the claimants for enhancement is dismissed.
The amount in deposit in MFA No. 103454/2015 filed by the Insurance Company be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith.
I.A. No. 1/2016 does not survive for consideration and accordingly, the same is dismissed.