AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil, J.—These appeals, respectively by the claimants and Insurer are directed against the same judgment and award dated 22nd February 2007, passed in M.V.C. No. 3839/2005, by the IX Additional Judge, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-7, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore (SCCH-7), (for short, ''Tribunal''), awarding compensation of Rs. 18,30,000/- with interest at 6% per annum, in favour of the claimants. While the claimants have filed the appeal seeking enhancement of compensation, the Insurer has filed the appeal seeking reduction of compensation, on the ground that the compensation awarded by Tribunal is on the higher side.
The facts in brief are that, claimants are the parents of deceased A. Vijay Arvind. They filed the claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that at about 11:00 A.M, on 29-12-2004, when the deceased was travelling in Scorpio bearing Registration No. KA-03/MD-168 from Bangalore to KGF (Kolar) on Narasapura by-pass Road NH-4, at Kolar Taluk, Kolar, at that time, a Lorry bearing No. KA5 18/3963, being driven by its driver, at high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the Scorpio, as a result of which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same.
It is the case of the claimants that, the deceased was hale and healthy prior to the date of accident, which resulted in his death and on account of his untimely death, they have lost the only source of income, apart from social and financial security permanently and therefore, they have to be compensated reasonably.
On account of the death of the deceased, the claimants filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of a sum of Rs. Three crores against the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 22nd February, 2007. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition, awarding a sum of Rs. 18,30,000/- under different heads, with 6% interest per annum, from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimants are in appeal seeking enhancement of compensation and being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, as being exorbitant and excessive, the Insurer is in appeal before this Court, seeking reduction of the same.
We have heard the learned senior counsel appearing for claimants and the learned counsel for Insurer, for considerable length of time.
Learned Senior counsel appearing for claimants submits that, the Tribunal grossly erred in not taking into consideration the documentary evidence at Ex. P8, appointing the deceased as a Marketing Consultant on a monthly consolidated salary of Rs. 45,000/-, for assessing the monthly income of the deceased and therefore, the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal is liable to be modified by assessing the reasonable income of the deceased.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for Insurer vehemently submits that Ex. P8 - appointing the deceased as a Marketing consultant on a monthly consolidated salary of Rs. 45,000/- is only an appointment order and there is no documentary evidence to show that the deceased had accepted the said appointment order and was in fact working as such. Further, he submits that the monthly income of Rs. 25,000/- assessed by Tribunal also is on the higher side and is liable to be reduced substantially. Therefore, he submits that the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal is liable to be modified by reducing the compensation considerably.
After hearing the rival contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, after perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal and after re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, We do not find any error or material irregularity as such committed by the Tribunal in awarding the compensation of Rs. 18,30,000/- under different heads with interest at 6% per annum, in favour of the claimants, on account of the untimely death of the deceased in the road traffic accident. It can be seen that, the Tribunal at paragraph 15 of its judgment has discussed regarding the assessment of the monthly income of the deceased in detail. It is stated therein that Exs. P10 and P11 disclose that deceased working in ICICI One Source from November 2004 and Ex. P12 discloses that the deceased was offered a job as a Computer Network Engineer in Mobil Computer Service at Houston, Texas. It is also stated that the deceased was an Engineering Graduate in Computer Science in First Class and also good at extra-curricular activities and a young and energetic boy of 25 years. Therefore, the Tribunal, bearing in mind the educational qualification of the deceased and also taking into consideration that he was appointed as a Marketing Consultant in a Software Development Corporation and was also offered a job as a Computer Network Engineer in Mobil Computer Service, Houston, Texas, USA, and Exs. P8 and P10, and also having regard to the future prospects of the deceased, had he continued in the said post, has assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 25,000/-. The same, in our view, is highly just and proper. Hence, we cannot find fault in the same. Further, it can be seen that the Tribunal has rightly deducted 50% towards the personal expenses of the deceased as he was a bachelor and the age of the younger parent of the deceased has to be taken for adopting multiplier. Even though the age of the mother of the deceased is stated as 50 years in the claim petition, the Tribunal, after assessing the oral and documentary evidence available on file, has re-assessed the age of the mother of the deceased as 52 years. The same is just and proper and we accept the same. For the said age, the proper multiplier applicable is ''12'' as per the decision of the Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, which the Tribunal has rightly adopted. Therefore, we do not find any error or illegality as such committed by Tribunal in awarding compensation towards loss of dependency, taking the monthly income at Rs. 25,000/- and adopting multiplier of ''12''. Further, so far as compensation awarded towards conventional heads is concerned, we are of the considered view that the said compensation is also just and proper, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also having regard to the fact that the claimants are parents.
Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation towards loss of dependency as well as under conventional heads. Hence, we do not find any justification or good ground to interfere in the well considered judgment passed by the Tribunal. Hence, interference in the same is uncalled for. For the reasons stated above, both the appeals filed by the claimants as well as Insurer are liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. Accordingly, they are dismissed.
The amount, if any, in deposit by the Insurer shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal, forthwith.
Office to draw award, accordingly.