Radhamma and Others vs Shaik Babu and Others

N.K. Patil, J.—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 appellants-claimants is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 26/12/2013, passed in MVC No. 129/2013, by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kolar, (hereinafter referred to as ''Tribunal'' for short), for enhancement of compensation., on the ground that, a sum of Rs. 3,76,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under different heads with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till its deposit, as against the claim Rs. 20,00,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased Sri Janardhanareddy, in the road traffic accident is inadequate.

In brief, the facts of the case are:

The appellants are the wife and children of the deceased. They filed a 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 11.6.2013 at about 2.10 p.m. deceased after completion of his work, he was proceedings in his two wheeler bearing Reg. No. KA.40.Q.9664 from Srinivasapur to go to his village and when he reached near Shinganahalli village gate, Chintamani Taluk, at that time, behind the back of his vehicle the driver of Lorry drove the vehicle bearing Reg. No. AP.03.U.9966 with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the two wheeler. As a result, deceased sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to R.L. Jalappa Hospital, Tamaka, Kolar, in an ambulance 108, but while under treatment he was succumbed to the injuries.

It is the further case of the appellants that, deceased was aged about 61 years, hale and healthy prior to the accident, he was a retired government employee and agriculturist by profession growing commercial crops and earning Rs. 40,000/- per month and looking after the welfare of the family by contributing his entire earnings to the family. Due to his untimely death, wife has lost her husband, children are deprived of the love and affection, guidance and security of their father and suffered financial loss as they have lost their bread earner, 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. 3,76,000/- under different heads with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its deposit.

Being dis-satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants have presented this appeal, for enhancement of compensation.

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

The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, at the outset is that, the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased only at Rs. 6,000/- per month, on the ground that, deceased was a retired government employee and agriculturist by profession, the accident had occurred in the year 2013 and dependants are his wife and children. Therefore, he submitted that, income of the deceased may be re-assessed at Rs. 7,000/- to Rs. 7,500/- per month. Further, he submits that, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards conventional heads and the rate of interest awarded at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its deposit is on the lower side and is liable to be enhanced. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified.

As against this, learned counsel appearing for the Insurer, inter-alia, contended and substantiated that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file and therefore, it does not call for interference.

After hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties and after careful perusal of the material available on record at threadbare, 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. It is also not in dispute that deceased was aged about 61 years, hale and healthy prior to the accident and agriculturist by profession and the dependants are his wife and children. On account of untimely death of the deceased, the appellant No. 1, wife has lost her husband, appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are deprived of the love and affection, guidance and security of their father and it has affected the social and economic condition of the family. Further, it emerges that, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 6,000/- per month, which is on the lower side and it needs to be enhanced. Having regard to the age and occupation of the deceased and the year of accident, we re-assess his income at Rs. 7,000/- per month instead of Rs. 6,000/- per month as assessed by the Tribunal. Out of which, if 1/3rd ( Rs. 2,333/-) is deducted towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased since there are three appellants, his net income comes to Rs. 4,667/- per month. The appropriate multiplier applicable is ''7'' since the deceased was aged about 61 years as rightly adopted by the Tribunal and we accept the same. Therefore, we re-determine the loss of dependency at Rs. 3,92,028/- ( Rs. 4,667/- x 12 x 7) instead of Rs. 3,36,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal and accordingly, it is awarded.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, we award a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 30,000/- towards; loss of love and affection at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- each to the appellant Nos. 1 to 3, Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 25,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses instead of Rs. 40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

It is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that, rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its deposit is on the lower side and is liable to be enhanced since the accident is of the year 2013. We find some substance in the said submission. Therefore, in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court and this Court, we award the rate of interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till its realization on the entire compensation.

In all, the appellants are entitled to the total compensation of Rs. 5,72,028/- instead of Rs. 3,76,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 9% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization.

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 26/12/2013, passed in MVC No. 129/2013, by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kolar, is hereby modified, awarding Rs. 5,72,028/- instead of Rs. 3,76,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 9% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization. There would be an enhancement of Rs. 1,96,028/- with interest at 9% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization.

The Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,96,028/- with interest at 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Immediately on deposit by the Insurer, out of the enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,96,028/-, a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized or Scheduled or Grameena Bank, in the name of appellant No. 1 for a period of ten years and renewable by another five years, with liberty reserved to her to withdraw the interest accrued on it, periodically.

The remaining sum of Rs. 46,028/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the appellant No. 1 immediately.

Draw the award, accordingly.