Renukamma and Others vs The Managing Director, BMTC

N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the appellants-claimants is arising out of the impugned judgment and award dated 31/01/2015, passed in MVC No. 6676/2013, by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and XX Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore (SCCH-22), (hereinafter referred to as ''Tribunal'' for short), for enhancement of compensation, on the ground that, a sum of Rs. 8,76,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under different heads with interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization, as against the claim of Rs. 30,00,000/-, on account of the death the deceased Sri. Thimmaraju T.S, in the road traffic accident is inadequate.

In brief, the facts of the case are:

"The appellant No. 1 is the wife, appellant No. 2 is the father, appellant Nos. 3 and 4 are the brothers of the deceased Sri. Thimmaraju T.S. They filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation on account of the death of the deceased in the road traffic accident, contending that, on 28.10.2013 at about 3.15 p.m. deceased was standing on the extreme left side of footpath of 100 ft. ring road, infront of BMTC depot, Hebbal, Bangalore, cautiously with car and at that time, all of a sudden, the driver of the BMTC bus bearing Reg. No. KA.01.F.9124 drove the same with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner without observing the traffic norms came on wrong lane on the extreme left side of the footpath and dashed against the deceased. Due to which, deceased fell down on the foot path, the rear wheel of the said bus ran over on his head. Immediately, he was shifted to M.S. Ramaiah Medical College and Hospital for first aid, but the Doctors declared that deceased died on the way to the hospital and brought dead."

It is the further case of the appellants that, deceased was aged about 29 years, hale and healthy prior to the accident, working as mason and agriculturist and earning Rs. 9,000/- per month and looking after the welfare of the family. Due to his untimely death, appellant No. 1 has lost her life partner appellant No. 2 has lost his son and appellant Nos. 3 and 4 have lost their brother and it has affected the social and financial condition of the family.

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. 8,76,000/- under different heads with interest at 8% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization.

Being dis- satisfied with the quantum of compensation and the rate of interest 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.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants, at the outset submitted that, the Tribunal has erred in not assessing the income of the deceased reasonably and what is assessed is on the lower side and is liable to be re-assessed, on the ground that, deceased was aged about 29 years, working as mason and also an agriculturist and appellants are his wife, father and brothers and he used to spend whatever he earns to the welfare of the family. Therefore, he submitted that, the income of the deceased may be re-assessed at Rs. 9,000/- per month, after deducting 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and adopting multiplier of ''17'' as deceased was aged about 29 years, reasonable compensation may be awarded towards loss of dependency. Further, he submits that the compensation towards conventional heads and the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and is liable to be enhanced reasonably in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court in hosts of judgment. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be modified by enhancing reasonable compensation under all the heads.

As against this, learned counsel Sri. F.S. Dabali, appearing for respondent-Corporation, 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 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 is not in dispute. Further, it is not in dispute that, deceased was aged about 29 years, working as mason and agriculturist, dependants are his wife and father and his untimely death has affected the social and financial 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 lower side and it needs to be enhanced. Having regard to the age, occupation and year of the accident, we re-assess the income of the deceased at Rs. 9,000/- per month including future prospects. Out of which, if 1/3rd ( Rs. 3,000/-) is deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased as rightly done by the Tribunal, his net income comes to Rs. 6,000/- per month. Accepting the Multiplier of ''17'' adopted by the Tribunal since the deceased was 29 years at the time of his death as just and proper, we redetermine the loss of dependency at Rs. 12,24,000/- ( Rs. 6,000/- x 12 x 17) instead of Rs. 8,16,000/- 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 judgment of the Apex Court and this Court, we award a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- loss of consortium, Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- to each of the appellant Nos. 1 to 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. 14,74,000/- instead of Rs. 8,76,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

Regarding rate of interest, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, 6% interest per annum awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side, since the accident is of the year 2013. In the light of the judgment of Apex Court and this Court, we award the rate of interest at 9% per annum on the enhanced compensation instead of 6% awarded by the Tribunal.

There would be an enhancement of Rs. 5,98,000/- 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 and the impugned judgment and award dated 31/01/2015, passed in MVC No. 6676/2013, by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and XX Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore (SCCH-22), is hereby modified, awarding the compensation of Rs. 5,98,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization, in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

The respondent-Corporation is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 5,98,000/- 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 and award.

Immediately on such deposit by the respondent-Corporation, out of the enhanced compensation of Rs. 5,98,000/-, a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- 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 fifteen years renewable by another ten years, with liberty reserved to her to withdraw the interest accrued on it, periodically.

A sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized or Scheduled or Grameena Bank, in the name of appellant No. 2 for a period of ten years and renewable by another five years, reserving liberty to the appellant No. 2 to withdraw the interest accrued on it, periodically.

The remaining sum of Rs. 98,000/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 in equal proportion immediately.

Office to draw the award, accordingly.