AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the claimants is directed against the judgment and award dated 26th April 2014, passed in MVC No. 5611/2011, by the VIII Additional Small Cause Judge and XXXIII ACMM, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-5), (for short, ''Tribunal'') for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 10,27,000/- awarded in favour of the claimants as against their claim for Rs. 28,00,808/-, is inadequate.
The facts in brief are that, the claimants are the husband and two minor daughters of the deceased K.H. Hullatti. They filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that, at about 4:40 P.M., on 24-06-2011, when the deceased K.H. Hullatti was traveling as a pillion rider on the motor cycle bearing Registration No. KA-05/HL-4136, from Kodiyala Karenahalli at Hanumantha Nagar Cross, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk, the rider of the said motor cycle was riding the same at a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and applied sudden brake, due to which, the pillion rider lost control and fell down and sustained severe head injury and was hospitalized in Shrusti Hospital, Bangalore and on 28-06-2011, she succumbed to the grievous injuries sustained to the head in the road traffic accident.
It is the case of the appellants that, the deceased was aged about 42 years and working as a Teacher in Jodi Karenahalli School, getting salary of Rs. 15,699/- per month and hale and healthy prior to the accident. On account of the untimely death of the deceased, the appellants have lost the love and affection, inspiration and guidance, apart from social, financial and moral support and therefore, they have to be compensated reasonably.
On account of the death of the deceased, the appellants filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, seeking compensation against the respondents. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 26th April, 2014. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, awarding a sum of Rs. 10,27,000/- under different heads, with 6% interest per annum, from the date of petition till the date of payment. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants are in appeal before this Court, seeking enhancement of compensation.
We have gone through the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal and heard the learned counsel appearing for appellants and also the learned counsel appearing for first respondent/Insurer, for quite some time.
Shri Girimallaiah, learned counsel appearing for claimants/appellants vehemently submitted that, the Tribunal grossly erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards loss of dependency as well as towards conventional heads and further the rate of interest awarded is also on the lower side. To substantiate the said submission, he submitted that the deceased was aged about 42 years and working as a Teacher and claimants are none other than the husband and two minor children of deceased and she was contributing the entire sum to the welfare of the family and on account of her untimely death, the claimants are in financial distress and they have lost the love and affection and the children have lost inspiration and guidance of their mother. Further, he submitted that the Tribunal grossly erred in taking the net salary of the deceased for computing compensation payable towards loss of dependency. Therefore, he submitted that reasonable compensation be awarded towards loss of dependency, by taking the gross income, and adding 30% to it and deducting 1/3rd towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased and adopting proper multiplier.
He further submitted that the compensation awarded by Tribunal towards conventional heads and also the rate of interest awarded is on the lower side and liable to be enhanced, by modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal.
As against this, learned counsel appearing for first respondent/Insurer sought to justify the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, stating that the same is passed after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file and the compensation awarded is just and reasonable and hence, the same does not call for interference by this Court.
After hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties and after careful perusal of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the only point that arise for our consideration in this appeal is,
Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal is just and reasonable?
The undisputed facts of the case are, the occurrence of accident and the resultant death of the deceased K.H. Hullatti. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was aged about 42 years, hale and healthy prior to the accident and working as a Teacher in Jodi Karenahalli School, earning Rs. 15,699/- per month. To substantiate the same, the appellants have produced Ex. P11, Pay slip of deceased, which reveals that the deceased was drawing salary of Rs. 15,699/- per month. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel appearing for appellants, we have to add 30% towards future prospective income of the deceased, in the light of the judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, . Accordingly, if 30% (i.e. Rs. 4,709/-) towards future prospects, the income comes to Rs. 20,408/-. From this, if we deduct Rs. 200/- towards professional tax, the net income comes to Rs. 20,208/- per month. Further, as the claimants are three in number, i.e. we deduct 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased. Accordingly, if 1/3rd (i.e. Rs. 6,736/-) is deducted from Rs. 20,208/- towards her personal and living expenses, the net income would be Rs. 13,472/- per month. Further, it can be seen that, the husband of the deceased was aged about 50 years as on the date of accident. Therefore, for the said age, the proper multiplier applicable is ''13'' as per the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, as against ''14'' adopted by Tribunal. Thus, the compensation towards loss of dependency would work out to Rs. 21,01,632/- (i.e. Rs. 13,472/- x 12 x''13'') as against Rs. 7,59,024/- awarded by Tribunal.
Further, the Tribunal has erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards conventional heads also. In the light of the judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court and this Court in catena of decisions and also the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in M.F.A. No. 7737/2013, disposed of on 25th June 2014 (Smt. Padmavathi and others Vs. K. Ravichandran and another), we award a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium as against Rs. 20,000/-; Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of estate as against Rs. 30,000/-, Rs. 25,000/- towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses as against Rs. 10,000/- awarded by Tribunal and Rs. 75,000/- towards loss of love and affection at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- to each claimant as the Tribunal has failed to award any compensation under this head.
Further, as the deceased survived for four days, before succumbing to the grievous injuries sustained in the road traffic accident, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,08,000/- towards medical expenses including conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges, as per the medical bills and prescriptions produced by the claimants. The same is just and proper and does not call for interference by this Court.
Thus, the total compensation payable to claimants works out to Rs. 25,34,632/- as against Rs. 10,27,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. There would be enhancement of compensation by a sum of Rs. 15,07,632/-.
Further, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel appearing for claimants, the rate of interest awarded by Tribunal at 6% per annum is also on the lower side, as the accident has occurred on 24-06-2011. Therefore, as per the ratio of law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court and this Court in catena of decisions and also considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it fit and proper to award rate of interest at 9% per annum on the enhanced compensation, from the date of petition till the date of realization.
In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the appeal filed by appellants is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 26th April 2014, passed in MVC No. 5611/2011, by the VIII Additional Small Cause Judge and XXXIII ACMM, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-5), is hereby modified, awarding a sum of Rs. 25,34,632/- as against Rs. 10,27,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, from the date of petition till the date of realization. Thus, there would be enhancement of compensation by a sum of Rs. 15,07,632/- with 9% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.
The first respondent/Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 15,07,632/-, with interest thereon at 9% per annum, within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment and award.
Immediately on such deposit by the Insurer, a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- each with proportionate interest shall be invested in the names of appellant Nos. 2 and 3 - minor children of deceased, who must be now majors, in Fixed Deposit, in any scheduled/Nationalized/Grameena Bank, for a period of five years and renewable five years, with liberty reserved to them to withdraw the periodical interest.
A sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the name of appellant No. 1 - husband of deceased, in Fixed Deposit, in any scheduled/Nationalized/Grameena Bank, for a period of five years and renewable five years, with liberty reserved to him to withdraw the periodical interest.
Remaining sum of Rs. 1,07,632/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the appellant Nos. 1 to 3, in equal proportion, immediately.
Office to draw award, accordingly.