AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil. J.
This appeal by the claimants is directed against the judgmemt and award dated 19* February 2007, passed in MVC No. 8442/2005, by the 14th Additional Judge & Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore City (SCCH-10), (for short, ''Tribunal'') for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 4,99,000/- awarded in favour of the claimants as against their claim for Rs. 20,00,000/-, is inadequate. The facts in brief are that, the claimants are the parents of the deceased B.S. Vivek. They filed the claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that, at about 6:45 A.M, on 16-01-2005, when the deceased was riding his motor cycle bearing Registration No. KA-05/EW-762, on Bangalore-Hosur Road, near Yedavanahalli check Post, he met with an accident on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of Lorry bearing Registration No. HR-38/4124. Due to the impact, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same.
It is the case of the appellants that, the deceased was aged about 22 years and working as Technician in Asia Tobacco company, earning a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month and was hale and healthy prior to the accident. On account of the untimely death of the deceased, the appellants have lost the love and affection apart from social and financial security 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 19th 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 in part, awarding a sum of Rs. 4,99,000/- 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 Insurer, for quite some time.
After hearing learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Insurer, and after careful perusal of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, we are of the view that the Tribunal has erred in not assessing reasonable income of the deceased. To substantiate the monthly income of the deceased, the appellants have produced the Salary Certificate at Ex. P20. As per the said relevant document, we re-assess the income of the deceased at Rs. 9,389/- per month and deduct a sum of Rs. 30/- towards professional tax and also 50% towards the personal expenses of the deceased as he was a bachelor.
During the course of arguments, learned counsel appearing for appellants drew our attention to the latest decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and others (Civil Appeal No. 3723/2012, arising out of S.L.P.(C)No. 24489/2010), wherein, at paragraph 14, the Apex Court has held after referring to Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, and other relevant judgments, that ''Rather, it would be reasonable to say that a person who is self-employed or is engaged on fixed wages will also get 30% increase in his total income over a period of time and if he/she becomes victim of accident then the same formula deserves to be applied for calculating the amount of compensation.'' Further, the Hon''ble Apex Court has categorically observed that "In our view, it will be na�ve to say that the wages or total emoluments/income of a person who is self-employed or who is employed on a fixed salary without provision for annual increment etc. would remain the same through out his life. The rise in the cost of living affects everyone across the board. It does not make any distinction between rich and poor....."
In the case on hand, admittedly, the deceased was aged about 22 years and working as a Technician in a Private Company. We have re-assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 9,389/- per month, as above. If we deduct a sum of Rs. 30/- towards professional tax. The net income would be Rs. 9,359/-per month. In view of the judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court in Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and others (supra), we add 30% to the monthly income of the deceased, towards future prospects. Accordingly, the total monthly income would be Rs. 12,166/- ( Rs. 9,359/- + Rs. 2,807/-). It is stated that the deceased was aged about 22 years. But, since the deceased was a bachelor, the age of the mother has to be taken into consideration. The mother was aged about 50 years and the proper multiplier applicable is ''13'' as per the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, as against ''11'' adopted by Tribunal. As the deceased was a bachelor, we deduct 50% (i.e. Rs. 6,083/-) towards the personal expenses of the deceased. Accordingly, if 50% (i.e. Rs. 6,083/-) is deducted from Rs. 12,166/- towards his personal expenses, the net income would be Rs. 6,083/-per month. Thus, the compensation towards loss of dependency works out to Rs. 9,48,948/- (i.e. Rs. 6,083/- x.12 x''13'') as against Rs. 4,62,000/- awarded by Tribunal.
Further, the Tribunal has erred in awarding a sum of only Rs. 37,000/- towards conventional heads. The same is on the lower side. As per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma''s. case (supra), we award a sum of Rs. 45,000/- towards conventional heads, such as loss of estate, loss of love and affection and transportation and funeral expenses as against Rs. 37,000/- awarded by Tribunal.
Thus, the total compensation would come to Rs. 9,93,948/- as against Rs. 4,99,000/- awarded by Tribunal, with interest at 6% per annum, 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 19th February 2007, passed in MVC No. 8442/2005, by the 14th Additional Judge & Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore City (SCCH-10), is hereby modified, awarding a sum of Rs. 4,94,948/-, with interest at 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization, in addition to the compensation awarded by Tribunal.
The second respondent /Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 4,94,948/-, with interest thereon at 6% 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. 2,00,000/- each with proportionate interest shall be invested in the names of the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 -parents of deceased, in Fixed Deposit, in any scheduled/Nationalized Bank, for a period of five years, renewable by another five years, with liberty reserved to them to withdraw the periodical interest.
Remaining sum of Rs. 94,948/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the appellants No. 1 and 2, in equal proportion, immediately.
Office to draw award, accordingly.