AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.N. Keshavanarayana, J.—Though this appeal is listed today for orders, by consent of the learned counsel appearing on both sides, the matter is heard for final disposal. This appeal by the claimants in MVC No. 207/2009 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, MACT-II, Bidar, is for enhancement of compensation since they are dis-satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
The occurrence of accident, the resultant death of the deceased Zahooruddin on account of the injuries suffered by him, the involvement of lorry bearing Registration No. AP-27-W-3958 owned by Respondent No. 1, issuance of policy by Respondent No. 2 and its validity as on the date of the accident, are not in dispute. The claimants are the wife, minor children and parents of the deceased.
According to the claimants, the deceased was a driver-cum-owner of the lorry and from the said work, he was earning not less than Rs. 25,000/- p.m. and that he was the only bread earner of the family, as such, all the claimants were dependent on the income of the deceased. In support of their contentions, the claimants produced the extract of the driving licence as per Ex. P17, Registration Certificate in respect of the lorry owned by the deceased as per Ex. P21. They also produced Ex. P15 series which are the receipts said to have been issued by the Financier with whom the deceased had availed financial facility for purchasing lorry, for having repaid the loan in monthly installments ranging from Rs. 6,000/- to Rs. 12,000/-. Though the Tribunal on the basis of Exs. P17 and P21, accepted that the deceased was holding a valid driving licence to drive Heavy Goods Vehicle and that he was the owner of the lorry as described in Form 41 (Ex. P. 21), nevertheless did not accept the documents produced as per Ex. P15 series by stating that there is nothing on these receipts to show that from out of which source of income the installments have been paid. Therefore, the Tribunal proceeded to reckon the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 4,500/- and from out of that it deducted 1/4th towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased and by applying the multiplier of ''16'' since the deceased was shown to be aged 33 years, quantified the loss of dependency at Rs. 6,48,000/-. This method of computation of loss of dependency is called in question by the claimants in this appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal has committed serious error in reckoning the monthly income of the deceased only at Rs. 4,500/- in spite of the claimants having produced the cogent and acceptable evidence to show that he was the owner of lorry and he possessed licence to drive Heavy Goods Vehicle and he was in a position to pay the monthly installments ranging from Rs. 6,000/- to Rs. 12,000/-, therefore, the Tribunal ought to have reckoned the monthly income of the deceased commensurate with his vocation and the capacity to repay the monthly installments ranging from Rs. 6,000/- to Rs. 12,000/-. It is also his contention that having regard to the fact that the deceased was required to maintain his wife, five minor children and aged parents in all eight dependents, the contribution for living and personal expenses of the deceased should have been only 1/5th and not 1/4th, as adopted by the Tribunal.
Having heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides, I see considerable force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant.
As noticed supra, the documentary evidence produced by the claimants clearly establishes that the deceased was owning a lorry and he possessed valid licence to drive Heavy Goods Vehicle. The claimants have also shown that the deceased was repaying monthly installments to the Financier ranging from Rs. 6,000/- to Rs. 12,000/-. This shows that the deceased had availed financial facility for acquiring the lorry and he was discharging the said loan in monthly installments. Of course, as observed by the Learned Member of the Tribunal, the receipts (Ex. P15 series) do not disclose as to out of which source of income the amount has been repaid. Assuming that the repayment was made not from out of the income derived by running lorry and that he had some other source of income, nevertheless it speaks of his financial capacity. Claimant Nos. 2 to 6 are all minors, Claimant No. 7 being father is aged about 55 years. Therefore, subsequent to the death of the deceased, it cannot be said that the lorry could be run by any one of the claimants. The death of the deceased has resulted in deprivation of the income from running the lorry.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the monthly income reckoned by the Tribunal at Rs. 4,500/- is certainly on the lower side. Judicial notice of the fact may be taken that even in respect of the coolie workers, the courts are taking the daily earning between Rs. 125/- to Rs. 150/- and in some cases and in some cases, even more. Therefore, in view of the fact that the deceased was the owner of the lorry and was also possessing valid licence to drive the said lorry, the income of the deceased should be more than that of a coolie worker. Taking into consideration these factors, in my considered opinion, interest of justice would be met if the income of the deceased is reckoned at Rs. 7,000/- p.m.
Having regard to the fact that there were seven dependents, even if the father is held to be not a dependent, the deduction towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased should be 1/5th and not 1/4th as adopted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has adopted the proper multiplier of ''16'' having regard to the age of the deceased. Therefore, the total loss of dependency works-out to Rs. 10,75,200/- (Rs. 7,000/- x 12 x 16 x 4/5). Thus, the claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs. 10,75,200/- under the head of Loss of Dependency. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the conventional heads and also towards the medical expenses, etc., in a sum of Rs. 65,000/- does not call for any interference by this court. Thus, the claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs. 11,40,200/- as against Rs. 7,23,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed-in-part. It is ordered that the claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs. 11,40,200/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Forty Thousand Two Hundred) as against Rs. 7,23,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation of Rs. 4,17,200/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Seventeen Thousand Two Hundred) shall carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment. Respondent No. 2 insurer shall deposit the enhanced compensation together with interest within six weeks from today.
The apportionment and disbursal of the enhanced compensation amongst the claimants shall be in the same ratio as indicated by the Tribunal in the judgment and award under appeal.