Rangamma and Others vs Anitha. K.P. 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 31/07/2010, passed in MVC No. 1016/2007, by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kunigal, (hereinafter referred to as ''Tribunal'' for short), for enhancement of compensation, on the ground that, a sum of Rs. 3,81,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under different heads with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, as against the claim Rs. 24,00,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased Sri Govindaiah, 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 along with the mother of the deceased have 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 16.4.2007 at about 4.30 p.m. deceased was standing on the left side of NH.48 road near Surappanahalli to cross NH.48 road for fetching water from the other side, at that time, the driver of Tata Indica car bearing Reg. No. KA.03.B.5668 came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against the deceased. Due to which, deceased sustained grievous injuries and was shifted to CHC Kunigal and then he was taken to District Hospital, Tumkur, but, he succumbed to the injuries.

It is the further case of the appellants that, deceased was aged about 46 years, hale and healthy prior to the accident, agriculturist-cum-sericulturist (silkworm rearing) and earning Rs. 1,50,000/- per annum and also earning Rs. 300/- per day by doing milk vending business and looking after the welfare of the family by contributing his entire earnings to the family. Due to his untimely death, appellants have 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. 3,81,000/- under different heads with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

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

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 not assessing the income of the deceased reasonably and what is assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 3,000/- per month is on the lower side and it is liable to be re-assessed reasonably, on the ground that, deceased was an agriculturist-cum-sericulturist and also doing milk vending business and entire family was depending on his income. Further, he submits that, compensation awarded towards conventional heads by the Tribunal is on the lower side and it is liable to be enhanced reasonably in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court and this Court. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified by enhancing reasonable compensation towards loss of dependency and towards conventional heads.

As against this, learned counsel appearing for the Insurer, inter-alia, contended and substantiated that the impugned judgment and award passed 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 the 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 case of the appellants that deceased was aged about 40 years, hale and healthy prior to the accident, agriculturist-cum-sericulturist and also doing milk vending business and only earning member in the family, entire family was depending on his income and on account of the untimely death of the deceased, wife has lost her companion, children are deprived of the love and affection, guidance and inspiration of their father and mother has lost her son. Taking all these aspects into consideration, we re-assess the income of the deceased at Rs. 6,000/- per month instead of Rs. 3,000/- per month as assessed by the Tribunal to meet the ends of justice. Out of which, if 1/4th ( Rs. 1,500/-) is deducted towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased as rightly done by the Tribunal, his net income comes to Rs. 4,500/- per month. The proper multiplier applicable is ''13'' since deceased was aged about 46 years as rightly adopted by the Tribunal. Therefore, we re-determine the loss of dependency at Rs. 7,02,000/- ( Rs. 4,500/- x 12 x 13) instead of Rs. 3,51,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal and accordingly, it is awarded.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court, we award a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium Rs. 1,25,000/- towards loss of love and affection at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- to each of the appellant Nos. 1 to 4 and deceased mother, Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 25,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses.

In all, the appellants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 9,77,000/- instead of Rs. 3,81,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. There would be an enhancement of Rs. 5,96,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., (excluding interest for the delayed period of 1553 days in filing the appeal) from the date of petition till its realization.

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants is allowed in part. The impugned common judgment and award dated 31/07/2010, passed in MVC No. 1016/2007, by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kunigal, is hereby modified, awarding a sum of Rs. 5,96,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., (excluding interest for the delayed period of 1553 days in filing the appeal) from the date of petition till its realization, in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

The 2nd respondent-Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 5,96,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., (excluding interest for the delayed period of 1553 days in filing the appeal) 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. 5,96,000/-, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the Fixed Deposit in the name of appellant No. 1, wife of the deceased, in any Nationalized or Scheduled or Grameena Bank, for a period of 15 years, renewable by another 15 years, with liberty reserved to her to withdraw the interest accrued on it, periodically.

A sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the Fixed Deposit in the names of each of the appellant Nos. 2, 3 and 4, in any Nationalized or Scheduled or Grameena Bank, till they attain 30 years, with liberty reserved to them to withdraw the interest accrued on it, periodically.

Remaining sum of Rs. 96,000/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of appellant No. 1 immediately.

Draw the award accordingly.