Rajendra and Others vs Renuka N. and Others

B. Sreenivas Gowda, J.—Heard. Though the matter is listed for orders, with the consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.

It is a case of death of a bachelor in a road traffic accident. The parents and two younger sisters filed a claim petition before the MACT, Bangalore, seeking compensation under Sec. 166 of Motor Vehicles Act from the owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal by impugned judgment has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,85,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. Aggrieved by the sum awarded by the Tribunal, claimants have preferred this appeal seeking enhancement.

As there is no dispute regarding death of deceased in a road traffic accident that occurred on 21-04-2010 due to rash and negligent driving of offending water tanker bearing registration No. CAA-7117 by its driver and liability of the insurer of the offending vehicle, the only point that remains for consideration in the appeal is:

Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper or does it call for enhancement? 4. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.

Claimants in support of their contention that deceased by working as a Supervisor in Spar Co. was drawing salary of Rs. 13,000/- per month, have examined the second claimant, mother of deceased and a co-employee of the deceased as P.Ws. 1 and 2 respectively and have produced identity cards of the deceased and the mother of deceased at Exs. P. 11 and 12 respectively, marks cards of deceased at Exs.P.13 to 19 and authorization letter - Ex. P.21 and appointment order - Ex.P.22.

Learned Counsel for the claimants submits that deceased after completion of B.Com. degree has joined for service in June, 2008 at Spar Co. as Supervisor, as evident from Exs. P. 13 to 19 and Ex.P.22. In spite of that, the Tribunal has committed an error in assessing his income at Rs. 6,000/- per month and deducting 50% towards his personal expenses and taking remaining Rs. 3,000/- as his contribution to the family and erred in awarding very meager compensation.

Sri. Janardhan Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Co. submits, claimants except producing PUC marks cards and marks cards of three semesters of B.Com of the deceased have not produced documents to show that he had completed B.Com. He submits, the appointment letter is dt. 18-03-2010 and it is one month prior to the accident. The author of the appointment order is not examined and only a co-employee is examined to show, the deceased was working as a Supervisor. P.W.2 in his cross examination has stated, he has not issued the appointment order at Ex. P. 22 and the person who has issued the authorization letter in his favour authorizing him to give evidence is very much available and he is still working at Spar Co. Learned Counsel for the insurer further submits, Spar Co. is a reputed and established company having six branches in Bangalore alone and payment will be credited to the Bank accounts of the employees and no document with regard to remittance of salary of the deceased is produced. Therefore he submits, claimant has not established that he was working as a Supervisor in Spar Co., Bangalore.

Perusal of Exs.P.13 to 19 show, deceased had done SSLC in I class and PUC in II class and 4th, 5th and 6th semesters of B.Com degree in II class, but he has not produced document to show that he had completed B.Com. As per the appointment order - Ex.P.22, he was appointed just one month prior to the accident in which he died. Regarding payment of salary from the date of appointment till the date of his death, no document is produced. In the above circumstances, considering the educational qualifications of the deceased and his age and keeping in mind his future prospects, justice would be met if his income is taken as Rs. 8,000/- per month as against Rs. 6,000/- assessed by the Tribunal. Considering it is a case of death of a bachelor. The Tribunal is right in deducting 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal and living expenses. Multiplier of 15'' applied by the Tribunal based on the age of the mother of the deceased is also sound and proper. Therefore, loss of dependency works out to Rs. 7,20,000/- (Rs. 8,000/- x 1/2 x 12 x 15) and it is awarded as against Rs. 5,40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

A sum of Rs. 40,000/- is awarded as against Rs. 20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of love and affection at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- to each of the claimants.

Rs. 20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards transportation of dead body and funeral and obsequies expenses is just and proper and there is no scope for enhancement.

Rs. 5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of estate is just and proper and there is no scope for enhancement.

Thus the claimants are entitled for the following compensation:

Accordingly the appeal is allowed in part and the judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent stated herein above.

The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 7,85,000/- as against Rs. 5,85,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, and compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced by a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation.

Respondent - Insurance Co. is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount with interest within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Out of the enhanced compensation amount Rs. 50,000/- each with proportionate interest is ordered to be invested in F.D. in any nationalised/schedule Bank, for a period of 10 years, in the name of the claimants 2 to 4, who are the mother and younger sisters of the deceased and they are permitted to withdraw the interest periodically. The remaining amount with proportionate interest is ordered to be released in favour of all the claimants in equal proportion.

No order as to costs.