Radhamaniamma vs B. Shyamkumar and another

Though this matter is posted today for orders, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for both the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal.

This appeal by the claimant No.2/appellant is arising out of the impugned judgment and award dated 19-11-2013, passed in MVC No. 1489/2008, by the Senior Civil Judge and P.O., Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-17, Gubbi, (hereinafter referred to as ''Tribunal'' for short), for enhancement of compensation, on the ground that a sum of Rs. 3,99,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under different heads, with interest at 6% per annum against the claim of Rs. 15,00,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased Jyothi alias Jyothis Kumar alias Unni, in the road traffic accident is inadequate.

In brief, the facts of the case are:

The claimant No. 1 is the mother of the deceased. She along with her husband, claimant No. 2, father of the deceased has tiled claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation against the respondents, on account of the death of the deceased in the road traffic accident, contending that, on 10-7-2008 at about 1.00 a.m. when the deceased was proceeding on his Bajaj Boxer Motor bike bearing Reg. No. GA.04.A.1228 from Doddaguni towards Tiptur on NH-206 on the extreme end of the left side and when he reached N. Hosahalli gate, at that time, the driver of lorry bearing Reg. No. KA. 13.8889 came from apposite side with high speed in a rash and negligent manner without following the traffic rules and dashed against the motor bike of the deceased. Due to which, deceased fell down on the road and the said lorry ran over his body and consequently, he died at the sport.

It is the further case of the claimants i hat, deceased was aged about 23 years, hale and healthy prior to the accident and was working as JCB Operator and earning Rs. 8,000/- per month. Due to his untimely death, claimants who were completely depending upon his earnings have lost their son, who was their future hope and security, apart from mental shock and agony.

The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and other material available on file, has allowed the claim petition in part and awarded the compensation of Rs. 3,99,000/- under different heads, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.

Being dis-satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, claimant No. 2 has presented this appeal, for enhancement of compensation, as claimant No. 1 has also died before filing this appeal.

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel for Insurer.

Learned counsel Sri. K. Shantharaj, appearing for the appellant submitted that, the Tribunal has erred in not assessing the income of the deceased reasonably on the ground that, he was aged about 23 years, JCB operator by profession and earning Rs. 8,000/- per month. Further he submits that on account of untimely death of the deceased, claimants have suffered mental pain and agony apart from financial distress. But this aspect of the matter has not been considered or looked into or appreciated by the Tribunal while assessing the income of the deceased. Therefore, he submitted that the income of the deceased may be re-assessed reasonably between Rs. 5,500/- to Rs. 6,500/- per month, after deducting 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased and applying ''18'' multiplier taking the age of the deceased, reasonable compensation may be awarded towards loss of dependency. Further, he submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards conventional heads is also on the lower side and is liable to be enhanced reasonably. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified.

As against this, learned counsel Sri. H.S. Lingaraj, appearing for the Insurer, inter-alia, sought to substantiate that, the Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on file, has justified in awarding reasonable compensation towards loss of dependency and conventional heads and therefore, it does not call for interference.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the material available on record, including the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the only point that arises for our consideration is:

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

The occurrence of the accident and the resultant death of the deceased are not in dispute. The dependants are the parents of the deceased. It is the case of the claimants that, deceased was aged about 23 years, working as JCB operator and earning Rs. 8,000/- per month. But they have not produced any documents to prove the same, except making a statement in the affidavit filed byway of Examination-in-Chief. Therefore, having regard to the age and occupation of the deceased and year of the accident, we re-assess his income at Rs. 5,500/- per month instead of Rs. 4,500/- per month as assessed by the Tribunal to meet the ends of justice. Out of which, if 50% (Rs. 2,750/-) is deducted towards his personal expenses since he was a bachelor, his remaining income comes to Rs. 2,750/- per month. The proper multiplier applicable taking the age of the younger parent-mother of the deceased as 48 years, is ''13'', in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma''s case, reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 instead of ''12'' adopted by the Tribunal. Therefore, we re-determine the loss of dependency at Rs. 4,29,000/- (Rs. 2,750/- x 12 x 13) instead of Rs. 3,24,000/- awarded by the Tribunal and accordingly, it is awarded.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we award a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 25,(XX)/- towards transportation and funeral expenses. In all, the appellant is entitled to the total compensation of Rs. 5,29,000/- instead of Rs. 3,99,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. There would be an enhancement of Rs. 1,30,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realisation (excluding interest for the delayed period of 690 days in filing the appeal).

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants is allowed in part and the impugned judgment and award dated Till-2013, passed in MVC No. 1489/2008, by the Senior Civil Judge and P.O., Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-17, Gubbi, is hereby modified, awarding the compensation of Rs. 1,30,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization, (excluding interest for the delayed period of 690 days in filing the appeal) in addition (o the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

The 2nd respondent/insurer is directed o deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,30,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realisation (excluding interest for the delayed period of 690 days in filing the appeal), within a period of three weeks for the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Immediately on such deposit by the 2nd respondent-Insurer, out of the enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,30,000/-, 50% with proportionate interest shall be invested in Fixed Deposit, in the name of the appellant, in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank, for a period of five years and renewable by another five years, with liberty reserved to her to withdraw the interest accrued on it, periodically.

The remaining 50% with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the appellant No. 1, immediately.

Draw the award, accordingly.