Shantabai and another vs Ramesh and another

B. Manohar, J. - Appellants are the claimants, being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the judgment and award dated 12-12-2013 made in MVC No. 1612/2012 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. VII at Bijapur (hereinafter referred to as `Tribunal'') have filed this appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation.

The case of the claimants/appellants is that on 4-7-2012 at about 9.30 p.m. the deceased Sunil was standing on the extreme end of the road. At that time, a Tipper Lorry bearing registration No. K A-28/B-5088 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the deceased Sunil. Due to that the Sunil fell down and sustained grievous injuries. However, he succumbed to the injuries after one month. The claimants claim that, at the time of death, the deceased was aged about 22 years and earning Rs. 9,000/- per month. In view of the death of Sunil the family has lost bread earner and hence sought for compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/-.

In pursuance of the notice issued by the Tribunal, respondent No. 1 entered appearance and filed statement of objections contending that due to the negligence on the part of the deceased himself, the accident had occurred. The vehicle is insured with the second respondent and the insurer has to compensate the claimants.

The second respondent/insurance Company filed written statement denying the entire averments made in the claim petition and also contended that the offending vehicle is not insured as on the date of the accident and the liability on the insurance company is subject to subsistence of insurance contract between owner and this claimant and terms and conditions mentioned therein. There is no connection between the alleged accident and death of deceased. The claimants are not legal representatives of deceased and they had disputed the age, income and occupation of the deceased and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the tribunal framed necessary issues.

In order to prove their case, the first claimant got examined himself as PW-1 and examined one of the eye-witnesses of the accident as PW.2. On behalf of the respondents, none of the witnesses have been examined. However, insurance policy of the offending vehicle was marked as Ex. R.l with the consent of the parties.

The tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties and taking into consideration the spot panchanama, copy of the complaint and FIR, held that due to the rash and negligent riding of the Tipper, the accident occurred and the deceased died due to negligence on the part of the driver of the Tipper. Taking into consideration, the income of the deceased as Rs. 5,000/- per month, deducting 50% towards his personal expenditure and applying the multiplier of 18 the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,40,000/- towards the loss of dependency, Rs. 1,22,900/- towards the medical expenses and Rs. 35,000/- towards conventional heads. In all, the tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 6,97,000/- with interest at 8% p.a. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimants have filed this appeal.

I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the advocate appearing for the parties and perused the judgment and award passed by the tribunal and oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties.

The finding of the tribunal with regard to the actionable negligence on the part of the rider of the tipper has become final and nobody has challenged the said finding. The claimants are the dependents of the deceased. The issue is only with regard to the quantum of compensation is concerned. The claimants contended that the income of Rs. 5,000/- per month taken by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Admittedly, the accident occurred in the year 2012. Even the income of the coolies working in any Government Department would earn minimum wages of more than Rs. 200/- per day. Even in Lok Adalat also the income of Rs. 6,550/- per month would be taken. Even though, the claimants have not produced any document to substantiate the same, the tribunal ought to have taken the reasonable income and awarded the compensation.

On the other hand, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent-insurance company argued in support of the judgment and award and sought for dismissal of appeal.

On perusal of the records, it is clear that the accident occurred in the month of December 2012, the income of Rs. 5,000/- per month taken by the Tribunal is lower side. Even for daily wage employees working in any Government department, the income is being taken as Rs. 6,500/- per month. In the absence of necessary documents regarding proof of income, the Tribunal ought to have taken the income of the deceased as Rs. 6,200/- per month. Accordingly, taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 6,200/- per month deducting 50% towards his personal expenditure since he was a bachelor and applying the multiplier of 18 as the deceased was aged about 22 years, the claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs. 6,69,600/- (Rs. 6,200/2 = 3,100 x 12 = 37,200 x 18) towards the loss of dependency as against Rs. 5,40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Further, the claimants are entitled another sum of Rs. 1,22,900/- towards the medical expenses and Rs. 50,000/- towards conventional heads. In all, the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs. 8,42,500/- as against Rs. 6,97,900/- awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, the claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,44,600/-. Accordingly, I pass the following :

The appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 12-12-2013 passed in MVC No. 1612/2012 by the Tribunal is modified. The claimants are entitled for the enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,44,600/- apart from Rs. 6,97,900/- awarded by the tribunal with 7% interest p.a.