AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Aravind Kumar, J.—This is an appeal filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation being not satisfied with the Judgment and award passed in MVC No. 84/94 dt. 21.2.2004 passed by the MACT, Bangalore.
The facts in nutshell are as follows:
One Sri. R.V. Chandrashekar, aged about 19 years was travelling on 27.9.1993 in a bus bearing registration No. AP. 11 T945 and when it reached near Kadlur village on National Highway-48 at about 11.30 p.m., a tempo bearing registration No. KA.14-1174 dashed against the bus, on account of which Sri. R.V. Chandrashekar is said to have died at the spot along with other 9 persons. On account of the death of said Sri. R.V. Chandrashekar, his parents filed a claim petition u/s 166 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs. two lakhs.
On service of notice, respondents 1 and 3 though served did not appear and hence were placed ex parte and respondents 2 and 4 i.e. Insurance companies of the two vehicles appeared and filed their written statement denying petition averments. The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings framed the issues. The claimant in support of their claim examined the 1st claimant as PW-1 and got marked Exs. P1 to P8. No evidence was let in on behalf of the respondents. On the basis of the pleadings and evidence on record, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part and awarded compensation of Rs. 1,07,400/- under the following heads:
Loss of dependency - Rs. 86,400/- Transportation of dead body - 1,000/- Loss of love and affection - 10,000/- Funeral expenses - 5,000/- Loss of estate - 5,000/- Total - Rs. 1,07,400/-
The liability has been accepted by the 2nd respondent herein who was also 2nd respondent before the Tribunal and the insurer of the Bus bearing registration No. AP.11 T 945. It is this Judgment and award which is challenged in the present appeal.
I have heard Sri. Hemant learned Counsel appearing on behalf of M/s Pramila Assts. and Smt. Lokeshwari, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of 2nd respondent. Sri. Hemant would contend that compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heading ''loss of dependency'' is on the lower side and Tribunal should have taken the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- p.(sic) and accordingly compensation should have been determined. He would also submit that compensation awarded under ''Other headings'' is on the lower side and requires to be enhanced. Per contra, Smt. Lokeshwari, learned Counsel appearing for 2nd respondent would contend that Tribunal has taken into consideration the relevant material placed by the claimants and accordingly has awarded the compensation. She would also submit that Tribunal has accepted the plea put-forward by the claimant with regard to the income of the deceased, which according to them was Rs. 1,000/- and hence submits that the Judgment and award impugned in this appeal does not call for interference at the hands of this Court.
Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, the following points arise for my consideration:
i) Whether the compensation awarded under Judgment and award passed by the tribunal in MVC No. 84/94 dt. 21.2.2004 is just and reasonable or is it required to be modified or enhanced? If so, to what extent?
ii) What order?
Re. Point No. I:
Perusal of the Judgment and award of the Tribunal reveals that claimants had contended that the deceased was working as an Operator in Ross Precision Products and was drawing a salary of Rs. 1,000/- p.m. In support of this claim and to establish that deceased was working at Ross Precision Products, they have produced two letter dt. 11.12.1993 issued by the said M/s Ross Precision Products, which were marked as Ex. P3 and P4. However, the claimants themselves have contended that deceased was earning salary of Rs. 1,000/- p.m. This has been accepted by the Tribunal and the contention now put forward by Sri. Hemant, that the Tribunal ought to have taken the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- p.m., cannot be accepted for two reasons. Firstly even according to the claimants the income of the deceased was Rs. 1,000/-p.m. and secondly, no documents have been placed either before the Tribunal or the Appellate Court to establish as to what was the income of the deceased. In the absence of any material I am of the considered opinion that Tribunal was justified in accepting the plea put forward by the claimant as to the salary drawn by the deceased at Rs. 1,000/- p.m.
Having determined the salary of the deceased at Rs. 1,000/- p.m., the compensation is to be recomputed. Since the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the future prospects that the deceased would have earned, particularly when he was of tender age of 19 years, as on the date of accident. In view of the dictum in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, , 50% is required to be added to the income of the deceased which would be Rs. 1,500/- p.m. and as he was a bachelor, 50% is required to be deducted and after deducting the same, loss of dependency to the legal representatives would be Rs. 750/- p.m. i.e. Rs. 9,000/- p.a. The deceased was a bachelor and claimants being the father and mother, for the purpose of applying appropriate multiplier the age of the mother, younger of the parents is required to be taken into consideration and as on the date of accident the age of the mother being 48 years, the appropriate multiplier that requires to be adopted would be 13 as against 12 adopted by the Tribunal. Hence applying multiplier at ''13'', the compensation that becomes payable by the 2nd respondent to the claimants would be Rs. 1,17,000/-(Rs. 9000 x 13).
The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 26,000/- under the conventional heads which are marginally on the lower side. This court has taken consistent view that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- under each head is required to be awarded under conventional heads. Accordingly a total sum of Rs. 40,000/- is awarded under the conventional heads. Thus, the total compensation that becomes payable by the 2nd respondent to the claimants would be Rs. 1,57,000/-. Accordingly, point No. 1 is answered holding that the Judgment and award in MVC 84/94 dt. 21.2.2004 require to be modified by way of enhancement as discussed herein above.
Re. Point No. II
In view of the discussions made above, the following order is passed:
i) The appeal is allowed in part;
ii) Judgment and award passed in MVC 84/94 dt. 21.2.2004 is modified and substituted by awarding a sum of Rs. 1,57,000/- to the claimants which shall carry interest at rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment;
iii) In view of the orders passed on IA-I/2007 of even date, the claimants would not be entitled to interest for 1064 days.
iv) Considering the age of the claimants/appellants it would not be necessary to order for deposit of the amount. Accordingly it is ordered that the entire amount as ordered herein above is directed to be paid to the claimants in the ratio of 40:60, i.e., 40% with proportionate interest to father and 60% with proportionate interest to mother.
v) No order as to costs.