Nethramma and Others vs Zahir and Others

N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the claimants is directed against the judgment and award dated 18th April 2015, passed in MVC No. 92/2013, by the Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nanjangud, (for short, ''Tribunal'') for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 16,74,000/- awarded in favour of the claimants as against their claim for Rs. 86,25,000/-, is inadequate.

The facts in brief are that, the claimants are the wife, minor child and parents of the deceased Kotagi Kodadappa. They filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that, at about 5:40 P.M., on 14-09-2013, when the deceased was traveling as a pillion rider along with one Purushothama who was riding the Motor Cycle bearing Registration No. KA-06/EJ-2283, slowly and cautiously, near Mysuru-Ooty Main Road, near Mandakalli Airport, at that time, the driver of Lorry bearing Registration No. KA-09/238 came at a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle of deceased from its backside. Due to the impact, the deceased fell down and the Lorry went on the body of deceased and he died on the spot.

It is the case of the appellants that, the deceased was aged about 32 years, working as Technical Associate at U.B. Group company and earning Rs. 15,000/- per month and hale and healthy prior to the accident. On account of the untimely death of the deceased, the appellants have lost the love and affection, inspiration and guidance, apart from social, financial and moral support and therefore, they have to be compensated reasonably.

On account of the death of the deceased, the appellants filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, seeking compensation against the respondents. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 18th April, 2015. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, awarding a sum of Rs. 16,74,000/- under different heads, with 6% interest per annum, from the date of petition till the date of payment. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants are in appeal before this Court, seeking enhancement of compensation.

We have gone through the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal and heard the learned counsel appearing for appellants and also the Insurer, for quite some time.

Ms. B.N. Manjula, learned counsel appearing for claimants/appellants vehemently submitted that, the Tribunal grossly erred in not adding 30% towards future prospects of the deceased as the deceased was aged about 32 years and working as Technical Associate in a reputed Company. Therefore, she submitted that in the light of the judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court in Santhosh Devi''s case (AIR 2012 SCW 2892 ), 30% may be added towards future prospects and deducting 1/4th towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased and adopting multiplier of ''16'' taking the age of the deceased in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, , compensation be awarded towards loss of dependency.

Further, she submitted that the compensation awarded towards conventional heads is also on the lower side and in the light of the law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court and this Court in hosts of judgments, reasonable compensation be awarded towards conventional heads.

She also vehemently submitted that the rate of interest awarded by Tribunal at 6% p.a. is also on the lower side as the accident has occurred on 14-09-2013. In view of the law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court and this Court in catena of decisions, at least 8% to 10% interest per annum may be awarded in the instant case, to meet the ends of justice and the impugned judgment and award be modified accordingly.

As against this, Shri C. Shankara Reddy, learned counsel appearing for Insurer vehemently submitted that the compensation awarded by Tribunal is after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file and also taking into consideration the age, avocation and also the year of accident etc. Therefore, interference in the same is not called for. However, he fairly submitted that the rate of interest may be modified, in accordance with law.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, and after careful perusal of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the only point that arise for our consideration in this appeal is,

Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal is just and reasonable?

The undisputed facts of the case are, the occurrence of accident and the resultant death of the deceased Kotagi Kodadappa. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was aged about 32 years and working as Technical Associate in U.B. Group Company. It is stated that he was salary of Rs. 15,000/- per month. But, as per Ex. P9, salary Certificate, he was getting salary of Rs. 11,700/- per month. To this, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for claimants, as per the law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court in Santhosh Devi''s case (supra), 30% has to be added towards future prospects. Accordingly, if 30% (i.e. Rs. 3,510/-) is added to Rs. 11,700/-, the gross income comes to Rs. 15,210/- per month. Out this, as the dependents are four in number, we deduct 1/4th towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. Accordingly, if 1/4th (i.e. Rs. 3,802/-) is deducted from Rs. 15,210/- towards his personal and living expenses, the net income would be Rs. 11,408/- per month, which is the income that would have been contributed by the deceased towards the family requirements. Further, as per the Post Mortem Report, the deceased was aged about 32 years as on the date of accident. Therefore, for the said age, the proper multiplier applicable is ''16'' as per the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, as rightly adopted by Tribunal. Thus, the compensation towards loss of dependency would work out to Rs. 21,90,336/- (i.e. Rs. 11,408/- x 12 x ''16'') as against Rs. 16,33,680/- awarded by Tribunal.

Further, the Tribunal has erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards conventional heads. In the light of the judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court and this Court in catena of decisions, we award a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium as against Rs. 10,000/-; Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of estate as against Rs. 10,000/-; Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- to each claimant as against Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses as against Rs. 10,000/- awarded by Tribunal. Thus, the total compensation payable to claimants works out to Rs. 24,40,336/- as against Rs. 16,74,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. There would be enhancement of compensation by a sum of Rs. 7,66,336/-.

Further, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel appearing for claimants, the rate of interest at 6% per annum awarded by Tribunal is on the lower side, as the accident has occurred on 14-09-2013. Therefore, as per the ratio of law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court and this Court in catena of decisions and also considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it fit and proper to award rate of interest at 9% per annum on the enhanced compensation, from the date of petition till the date of realization.

In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the appeal filed by appellants is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 18th April 2015, passed in MVC No. 92/2013, by the Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nanjangud, is hereby modified, awarding a sum of Rs. 24,40,336/- as against Rs. 16,74,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, from the date of petition till the date of realization. Thus, there would be enhancement of compensation by a sum of Rs. 7,66,336/- with 9% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 7,66,336/-, with interest thereon at 9% per annum, within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment.

Immediately on such deposit by the Insurance Company, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the name of first appellant - wife of deceased, in Fixed Deposit, in any scheduled/Nationalized/Grameena Bank, for a period of ten years, renewable by ten years, with liberty reserved to her to withdraw the periodical interest.

A sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the name of second appellant - minor child of deceased, in Fixed Deposit, in any scheduled/Nationalized/Grameena Bank, till the appellant No. 2 attains the age of 30 years, with liberty reserved to the appellant No. 1/mother and natural guardian to withdraw the periodical interest for his welfare, till he attains the age of 21 years and from 22 years to 30 years, appellant No. 2 is entitled to withdraw the interest periodically.

A sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- each with proportionate interest shall be invested in the name of third and fourth appellants - parents of deceased, in Fixed Deposit, in any scheduled/Nationalized/Grameena Bank, for a period of five years, renewable by five years, with liberty reserved to them to withdraw the periodical interest.

Remaining sum of Rs. 1,66,336/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the appellant Nos. 1, 3 and 4, in equal proportion, immediately.

Office to draw award, accordingly.