Parashuram vs Venkatreddy

A.V. Chandrashekara, J.—Claimants of a case in MVC. 174/11 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Jewargi, have filed this appeal challenging the award insofar as it relates to quantum of compensation of Rs. 40,000/- awarded in their favour.

One person by name Siddappa Harijan, elder brother of the appellants died in a road accident involving two vehicles on 25.7.2010. According to the claimants, a Tata Sumo bearing No. KA-33/M-1750 came from the opposite direction being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against Siddappa Harijan proceeding in his motorcycle bearing No. KA-37-E-8127 opposite Raise Dhaba. The accident is said to have taken place solely due to the negligence of Tata Sumo vehicle. According to them, deceased was earning Rs. 6,000/- p.m. and they have sustained loss of future income because of his death.

The insurer had contested the petition and ultimately the petition is allowed in part, granting Rs. 40,000/- only as compensation. Rs. 10,000/- is awarded under the head loss of love and affection, Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of estate'' and Rs. 10,000/- is awarded towards funeral and transportation of dead body.

Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that appellants are Class II heirs as per the provision of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act and therefore they are entitled for compensation. Reliance is placed on the Division Bench decision of this court reported in Managing Director, KSRTC Vs. K.S. Venkataramappa and Others, .

Per contra, learned counsel for the insurer has relied upon the decision of a Division Bench of this court in the case of A. Manavalagan Vs. A. Krishnamurthy and Others, . It is argued that that the best, they are entitled for 15% of monthly income that the deceased was getting prior to the accident in question.

Perused the records and heard learned counsel for the parties.

Admittedly the accident in question occurred in the year 2010. The deceased was aged 37 years as on the date of the accident. He was working as a coolie at a dhaba and was earning Rs. 6,000/- p.m. No documentary evidence is placed on record to substantiate the same. Just because no documentary evidence is placed on record, it cannot be said that he was not at all earning any income. Admittedly he was hale and healthy.

Even an agricultural labourer would get not less than Rs. 150/- per day. If the probable income of a coolie is assessed at Rs. 150/- per day, his monthly income would be Rs. 4,500/- p.m. and annual income would be Rs. 54,000/-. In the case of MANAVALAGAN (supra), the Division Bench has held as follows: (paragraph 20 (v)

"20....

(v) If the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are two non-dependent brothers/sisters aged 47 years and 45 years with independent income, the position would be different. As the deceased did not have a ''family,'' the tendency would be to spend more on oneself and the savings would be hardly 15%. If the saving is taken as 15% (Rs. 1,350/- per month), the annual savings would be Rs. 16,200/- which would be the multiplicand. The multiplier will be 13 with reference to the age of the claimants and the loss of estate would be Rs. 2,10,600/- p.a."

In the present case, admittedly the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are non-dependent brothers and sister aged 32, 30 and 26 years respectively. In fact deceased did not have a ''family.'' Hence savings would be 15% of Rs. 54,000/- = Rs. 8,100/-. The same will have to be multiplied by 15 multiplier which comes to Rs. 1,21,500/-. Thus loss of dependency will have to be considered as loss of estate.

The Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs. 10,000/- under the head ''funeral expenses and transportation of dead body. The amount awarded under the head loss of love and affection'' is quite inadequate and hence, Rs. 25,000/- would be reasonable. Similarly Rs. 20,000/- would be the reasonable amount under the head ''funeral expenses and transportation of dead body.'' In all, the appellants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 1,66,500/-. Out of this, Rs. 40,000/- already awarded by the Tribunal will have to be deducted. Thus appellants are entitled for an enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,26,500/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.

ORDER

The appeal is allowed in part with costs. Appellants-claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,26,500/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Six Thousand Five Hundred only) with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization, along with costs of this appeal. The judgment and award of the Tribunal stands modified accordingly. Rest of the directions issued by the Tribunal are confirmed.

It is made clear that the appellants are not entitled for interest for the delayed period of 659 days.