Salamma and Others vs Panapati Obula Reddy and Others

H. Billappa, J.—1. This appeal by the appellants-claimants is directed against the judgment and award dated 21.5.2012 passed by the MACT IX, Bellary, in MVC No. 99/2012.

By the impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs. 5,64,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

Aggrieved by that, the appellants-claimants have filed this appeal seeking enhancement.

Briefly stated the facts are; The appellants-claimants are the wife and children of the deceased Ramavath Ramachandra Naik @ R. Ramachandra Naik. That on 30/8/2011 when the deceased Ramavath Ramachandra Naik @ R. Ramachandra Naik and others were proceedings in an Auto-Rickshaw, bearing No. AP-02/TA-3683, on Rayadurga-R.B. Vanka Road, at about 4.15 p.m., near R.B. Vanka Village, the driver of the Auto-Rickshaw bearing No. AP 02/TA 3683, drove it at high speed. As a result of that, the vehicle lost control and turned turtle. The deceased Ramavath Ramachandra Naik @ R. Ramachandra Naik and others sustained injuries. The deceased succumbed to the same. The appellants who are the wife and children of the deceased Ramavath Ramachandra Naik @ R. Ramachandra Naik claimed compensation of Rs. 23,60,000/-. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 5,64,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Aggrieved by that, the appellants-claimants have filed this appeal seeking enhancement.

The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal has erred in taking income of the deceased at Rs. 4,500/- per month. The deceased was doing coolie work and earning Rs. 4000/- per month. From the agriculture the deceased was getting Rs. 1,80,000/- p.a. The Tribunal has taken the income of Rs. 4,500/- per month which is not correct. Further he submitted that the Tribunal has not considered the future prospects. He also submitted that the ration card shows that the age of the deceased was 40 years in the year 2006. Therefore, the Tribunal should have taken the age of the deceased as 45 years and applied appropriate multiplier. The Tribunal has erred in taking the age of the deceased as 47 years and adopting multiplier of ''13''. Further he submitted the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, towards loss of estate, funeral expenses and transportation charges is also inadequate and needs to be enhanced. He therefore, submitted the impugned judgement and award needs to be modified.

As against this, the learned counsel for the second respondent-insurance company submitted that the Tribunal on proper consideration of the material on record has awarded just and reasonable compensation and therefore, it does not call for interference. He also submitted that in view of the judgement of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 2836/2015 in the case of Shashikala and Others Vs. Gangalakshmamma and Others, future prospects cannot be considered as the matter has been referred to the larger Bench of the Apex Court.

In reply, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the three Judge Bench of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Munna Lal Jain & Another Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma & Others, reported in , II (2015) ACC 806 (SC) has considered future prospects. Therefore, future prospects can be considered.

We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

The point that arises for our consideration is; Whether the impugned judgment and award needs to be modified?

It is relevant to note, the deceased died in the accident that occurred on 30/8/2011 is not in dispute. The liability of the Insurance Company is also not in dispute. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,26,500/- towards loss of dependency, taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,500/- per month and adopting multiplier of ''13'' taking the age of the deceased as 47 years. It is stated the deceased was doing agricultural work and also coolie work. Keeping in view the nature of work, the income of the deceased can be taken at Rs. 6,000/- per month. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company contended that future prospects cannot be considered as the matter has been referred to the larger Bench of Hon''ble Supreme Court in Shashikala and Others Vs. Gangalakshmamma and Others in Civil Appeal No. 2836/2015 disposed of on 13/3/2015. The learned counsel for the appellants placing reliance on the three Judge Bench decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Munna Lal Jain & Another Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma & Others, reported in , II (2015) ACC 806 (SC) submitted that future prospects can be considered.

In view of the three Judge Bench decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in , II (2015) ACC 806 (SC) future prospects cab be considered. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the age of the deceased may be taken as 45 years, keeping in view the age mentioned in the ration card. However, there is no acceptable evidence on record regarding the age of the deceased. Based on the PM report, the Tribunal has taken the age of the deceased as 47 years, which is correct. Therefore, 30% needs to be considered towards the future prospects. The income of the deceased per month comes to Rs. 7,800/-. There are 5 dependents. Therefore, 1/4 needs to be deducted towards personal expenses. The loss of dependency per month comes to Rs. 5850/-. The appropriate multiplier is "13". Therefore, the compensation payable towards loss of dependency comes to Rs. 9,12,600/- (Rs. 5850 x 12 x 13). Accordingly, we award a sum of Rs. 9,12,600/- towards loss of dependency.

The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of consortium, which is inadequate. We award a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards the loss of consortium.

The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of love and affection. If needs to be enhanced. We award a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards love and affection.

The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 7,500/- towards transportation charges and funeral expenses which is inadequate. We award a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards funeral expenses and transportation charges.

The compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of estate does not call for interference.

The total compensation payable comes to Rs. 11,52,600/- and the break up is as follows:-

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and award dated 21.5.2012, passed by the MACT, Bellary, in MVC No. 99/2012 stands modified enhancing compensation by Rs. 5,88,600/- in addition to the amount awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation of Rs. 5,88,600/- shall carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The second respondent shall deposit the amount within eight weeks.

Out of the enhanced compensation the appellant No. 1 shall be entitled to a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- with proportionate interest. Keeping in view that the appellant No. 2 who is the son of the deceased and who is a student has not been awarded any compensation by the Tribunal, we award a sum of Rs. 1,44,300/- with proportionate interest. The appellants 3 to 5 shall be entitled to a sum of Rs. 48,100/- each in the enhanced compensation with proportionate interest.

50% of the enhanced compensation awarded in favour of the appellants 1 and 2 shall be invested in fixed deposit in any nationalised bank for a period three years. The appellants 1 and 2 shall be entitled to withdraw the interest accrued on it. The balance amount shall be released in favour of the appellants 1 and 2.

The entire compensation awarded in favour of the appellants 3 to 5 shall be invested in fixed deposit in any nationalised bank till they attain majority. The appellant No. 1 who is the mother and guardian of the appellants 3 to 5 shall be entitled to withdraw the interest accrued on it and spend it for the up keep of the appellants 3 to 5.