Renuka and Others vs H.M. Manjunath and Others

N.K. Patil, J.—Learned counsel Sri. H.V. Rajaram, appearing for appellants and learned counsel Sri. S.V. Hegde Mulkhand, appearing for 2nd respondent -Insurer, at the out set submitted that, they have no objection to take up this matter and dispose of the same on merits by this Bench. Their submission is placed on record.

This appeal by the appellants-claimants is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 04/07/2011, passed in MVC No. 7147/2008, by the Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal & Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, (hereinafter referred to as '' Tribunal'' for short), for enhancement of compensation, on the ground that, a sum of Rs. 8,89,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under different heads with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization, as against the claim of Rs. 25,00,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased Sri. Basavaraj, in the road traffic accident is inadequate.

In brief, the facts of the case are:

"The appellants are the wife and minor children of the deceased. They filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation against the respondents arraying the parents of the deceased as respondent Nos. 3 and 4, on account of the death of the deceased in the road traffic accident, contending that, on 17.7.2008 at about 8.00 p.m. deceased was proceeding as pillion rider in a Motorcycle bearing Reg. No. KA.18.J.6315 which was driven by one Imranulla and when they came in front of Cocoon market H cross on Chintamani road, at that time, the driver of Ambassador Car bearing Reg. No. KA.02.N.4919 belonging to the first respondent and insured with second respondent came in a rash and negligent manner from opposite direction and dashed against the Motorcycle. Due to which, both the rider and the pillion rider sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot."

It is the further case of the appellants that, deceased was aged about 35 years, hale and healthy prior to the accident, working as Godrej Material Delivery Contractor for Godrej Company and earning Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 35,000/- per month 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. 8,89,000/- under different heads with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization.

Being dissatisfied 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 Sri. H.V. Rajaram, 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. 6,000/- per month is on the lower side and is liable to be enhanced reasonably, on the ground that, deceased was aged about 35 years, working as Godrej Material Delivery Contractor for Godrej Company and earning Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 35,000/- per month, only earning member in the family, dependants are wife and minor children and entire family was depending on his income. Therefore, he submitted that the income of the deceased may be reassessed at Rs. 9,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- per month, 1/4th may be deducted and applying ''16'' multiplier, reasonable compensation may be awarded towards loss of dependency. Further, he submits that, compensation awarded towards conventional heads by the Tribunal is on the lower side and 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, taking into consideration the age, avocation of the deceased and year of the accident 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 35 years, hale and healthy prior to the accident, working as Godrej Material Delivery Contractor for Godrej Company and earning Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 35,000/- per month, 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 parents have lost their son. But the appellants have not produced any documents to prove the income of the deceased. Having regard to the age, occupation, year of the accident and the number of dependants, we reassess his income at Rs. 9,000/- per month instead of Rs. 6,000/- per month as assessed by the Tribunal to meet the ends of justice. Out of which, if 1/4th ( Rs. 2,250/-) is deducted towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased as rightly done by the Tribunal, his net income comes to Rs. 6,750/- per month. The proper multiplier applicable is ''16'' since deceased was aged about 35 years as rightly adopted by the Tribunal. Therefore, we re-determine the loss of dependency at Rs. 12,96,000/- ( Rs. 6,750/- x 12 x 16) instead of Rs. 8,64,000/- 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. 50,000/- 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 3 and respondent Nos. 3 and 4, 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. 15,21,000/- instead of Rs. 8,89,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. There would be an enhancement of Rs. 6,32,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., excluding interest for the delayed period of 462 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 judgment and award dated 04/07/2011, passed in MVC No. 7147/2008, by the Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal & Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, is hereby modified, awarding a sum of Rs. 6,32,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization excluding interest for the delayed period of 462 days in filing the appeal, in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

The 2nd respondent-Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 6,32,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization excluding interest for the delayed period of 462 days in filling the appeal, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Immediately on such deposit by the Insurer, out of the enhanced compensation of Rs. 6,32,000/-, 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 and 3, in any Nationalized or Scheduled or Grameena Bank, till they attain 30 years, with liberty reserved to the appellant No. 1 to withdraw the interest accrued on it, periodically, till they attain 21 years for the welfare of the appellant Nos. 2 and 3 and from 22 years to 30 years, appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are entitled 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 name of respondent No. 4-Chandramma, mother of the deceased in any Nationalized or Scheduled or Grameena Bank, for a period of 05 years and renewable by another 05 years, with liberty reserved to her to withdraw the interest accrued on it, periodically.

Remaining sum of Rs. 1,32,000/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of appellant No. 1, wife of the deceased and respondent Nos. 3 and 4, parents of the deceased in equal proportion immediately.

Draw the award, accordingly.

In view of disposal of the main matter, the relief sought by the appellants in I.A. No. 1/2015 does not survive for consideration. Hence, it is disposed of as having become infructuous.