AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil, J.—With the consent of the learned Counsel for both parties, this appeal is taken up for disposal at the stage of orders itself. This appeal is filed by the claimants against the impugned judgment and award dated 18.02.2011 passed in MVC No. 372/2009 on the file of the VI Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and MACT, Bengalore City (hereinafter referred to as ''Tribunal'' for brevity) awarding compensation of Rs. 4,66,052/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization on account of the death of P. Seetharamulu in a road traffic accident. On the ground that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and being dissatisfied by the same, the claimants have presented this appeal.
Brief facts of the case in hand are:
Appellant No. 1 is the wife and appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are the daughters of the deceased P. Seetharamulu. The wife and the minor children filed claim petition u/s 166 of the M.V. Act, claiming compensation against the respondents, being the owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle. The death of the deceased took place at Suguna Poultry Farm as per Ex. P.4. The claimants contend that the deceased was hale and healthy prior to the accident. Be that as it may, that on a fateful day on 28.02.2008 at about 11.30 p.m., when the deceased was travelling in a VRL Lorry bearing registration No. AP-09-V-9763, near Konapureddipalli, Pakala on Chittor-Thirupathi road, the driver of the said lorry drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the parked lorry bearing registration No. ATN-124 from behind. Due to the terrific impact, the deceased sustained grievous injurious and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. It is the further case of the claimants that they have lost social, moral and economical security. The minor children have lost love and affection, inspiration and guidance of their father at the young age. Therefore, the appellants/claimants filed the claim petition u/s 166 of the M.V. Act claiming compensation of Rs. 30,00,000/- against the respondents on account of the death of deceased in the road traffic accident. The claim petition filed by the claimants came up for consideration before the Tribunal and the Tribunal in turn after perusal of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, allowed the claim petition in part awarding a sum of Rs. 4,66,052/- under different heads with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Being dissatisfied with the same, the claimants have presented this appeal.
We have heard Sri R. Chandrashekhar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri B. Pradeep, learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent.
Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased was earning Rs. 6,500/- per month and salary certificate-Ex. P.4 issued by Suguna Poultry Farm is also produced but the Tribunal has assessed the income at Rs. 4,000/- per month ignoring the salary certificate, which is a authenticated document. He further submitted that the compensation awarded towards conventional heads is also on the lower side and liable to be enhanced.
Per contra, learned Counsel for the second respondent contended that the tribunal has awarded reasonable compensation after due consideration of the oral and documentary evidence available on record and does not call for interference.
After critical evaluation of the materials available on record and considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel for both parties and perusal of the impugned judgment and award, the point that arise for our consideration is:
Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?
The occurrence of the accident and the death of P. Seetharamulu are not in dispute. Further, it is also not in dispute that the deceased was working as Supervisor in Suguna Poultry Farm and the claimants are none other than the wife and minor children as on the date of accident. The accident occurred on 28.02.2008 and the deceased was aged about 45 years. The Tribunal has erred in assessing the income at Rs. 4,000/- p.m. and is on the lower side. Therefore, we re-assess the income at Rs. 5,000/- p.m. and deduct 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased which comes to Rs. 3,334/- (Rs. 5,000/--Rs. 1,666/-). The appropriate multiplier is ''14''. Accordingly, we re-determine the loss of dependency'' at Rs. 5,60,112/-(Rs. 3,334/- x 12 x 14) as against Rs. 4,16,052/-awarded by the Tribunal.
Further, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 15,000/-towards Funeral Expenses, Rs. 1 0,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of love and affection, which is reasonable and do not call for interference. For the foregoing reasons, the instant appeal filed by the appellants is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 18.02.2011 passed in MVC No. 372/2009, on the file of the VI Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and MACT, Bengalore City is hereby modified awarding Rs. 6,10,112/- as against Rs. 4,66,052/- awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation comes to Rs. 1,44,060/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit excluding interest for the delayed period of 517 days in filing the appeal.
R2-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount along with interest excluding the interest for delayed period of 517 days, within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment.
Out of the enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,44,060/-, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the name of appellant No. 1, in F.D. in any nationalised or scheduled bank for a period of 10 years and renewable for another 10 years, with liberty to withdraw the interest periodically.
Remaining Rs. 44,060/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the first appellant immediately on deposit of the said sum by R2-Insurance Company.
Office to draw the award, accordingly.
Sri B. Pradeep, learned Counsel for second respondent is permitted to file vakalath within a period of two weeks.