AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil, J.—Though this matter is posted today in orders list, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for both the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal.
This appeal by the appellants-claimants is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 7-3-2015, passed in MVC No. 103/2013, by the Senior Civil Judge and Member, Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hiriyur, (hereinafter referred to as ''Tribunal'' for short), for enhancement of compensation, on the ground that, a sum of Rs. 7,45,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under different heads with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation as against the claim Rs. 25,00,000/- on account of the death of the deceased Sri. Shafi Ahamed, in the road traffic accident is inadequate.
In brief, the facts of the case are :
The appellants are the wife, two minor children and parents of the deceased. They filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation against the respondents, on account of the death of the deceased in the road traffic accident, contending that, on 19-7-2012 deceased was going on his motorcycle bearing Reg. No. KA 26.J.1450 from Halumadhenahally village towards Hiriyur, when he was proceeding near Sagara Dhaba Hotel Bridge, Halumadhenahalli village on NH 19 road, Hiriyur Taluk, all of a sudden, driver of lorry bearing Reg. No. RJ 19.GA.1339 came from Hiriyur side with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to motorcycle of the deceased. Due to which, deceased sustained fatal injuries. Immediately he was admitted to Government Hospital, Hiriyur, after first aid, he was shifted to SS Hospital, Davanagere wherein he succumbed to injuries sustained in the accident.
It is the further case of the appellants that, deceased was aged about 42 years, hale and healthy prior to the accident, doing business and agriculturist and used to earn Rs. 25,000/- per month and looking after the welfare of the family by contributing his entire earnings to the family. His untimely death has affected the social and financial condition of the family, apart from mental shock and agony.
The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and other material available on file, has allowed the claim petition in part and awarded the compensation of Rs. 7,45,000/- under different heads with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.
Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation and the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants have presented this appeal.
We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned counsel for Insurer.
The submission of the learned counsel Sri. N.R. Range Gowda, appearing for the appellants, at the outset is that, the Tribunal has committed an error in not assessing reasonable income of the deceased for calculating loss of dependency, on the ground that, deceased was aged about 42 years, only earning member in the family and doing business and agriculturist by profession and earning Rs. 25,000/- per month and unfortunately, he succumbed to the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. Therefore, he submitted that the income of the deceased may be re-assessed at Rs. 8,000/- per month, after deducting �th towards his personal and living expenses and applying ''14'' multiplier, reasonable compensation may be awarded towards loss of dependency. Further he submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards conventional heads and the rate of interest awarded at 7.5 p.a. is on the lower side and contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court and hence, interest at 9 to 10% may be awarded. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified by awarding reasonable compensation.
As against this learned counsel appearing for 2nd respondent, inter alia, contended and substantiated that, the Tribunal, after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file and except making oral submission, appellants have not produced any credible documents to prove the income of the deceased, has justified in awarding reasonable compensation towards loss of dependency by assessing his income at Rs. 5,000/- per month, deducting �th towards his personal expenses and applying ''14'' multiplier and therefore, it does not call for interference. However, he fairly submitted that the compensation awarded towards conventional heads is on the lower side and the same may be considered in accordance with law.
After hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties and after careful perusal of the material available on record at threadbare, including the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the only point that arises for our consideration is :
Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?
Occurrence of the accident and the result death of the deceased are not in dispute. It is the case of the appellants that deceased was aged about 42 years, hale and healthy prior to the accident, only earning member in the family and doing business and agriculture. The dependants are his wife, minor children and parents. The Tribunal, has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 5,000/- per month, which is on the lower side and is liable to be enhanced. Having regard to the age, occupation of the deceased and the year of accident, we re-assess his income at Rs. 6,500/- per month to meet the ends of justice instead of Rs. 5,000/- per month as assessed by the Tribunal. Out of which, if �th ( Rs. 1,625/-) is deducted towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased, his contribution to the family comes to Rs. 4,875/- per month. The proper multiplier applicable is ''14'' since deceased was aged about 42 years as rightly adopted by the Tribunal in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma''s case. Therefore, we determine the loss of dependency at Rs. 8,19,000/- ( Rs. 4,875/- x 12 x 14) instead of Rs. 6,30,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal and accordingly, it is awarded.
The compensation awarded towards conventional heads and 7.5% interest awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side as rightly submitted by the learned counsel appearing for appellants. The same is liable to be enhanced, for the reason that, on account of the untimely death of the deceased, who was the only earning member in the family, appellant No. 1, wife, has lost her companion at her young age, appellant Nos. 2 and 3 minor children are deprived of the love and affection, guidance and security of their father and appellant Nos. 4 and 5, parents of the deceased have lost the love and affection and security of her son. Therefore, following law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court, we deem it fit to award a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 1,25,000/- towards loss of love and affection at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- to the each of the appellant Nos. 1 to 5, Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 25,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses. In all, the appellants are entitled to the total compensation of Rs. 10,94,000/- instead of Rs. 7,45,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal.
Regarding rate of interest, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing or the appellants, 7.5% interest per annum awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side, since the accident is of the year 2012. in the light of the judgment of Apex Court and this Court, we award the rate of interest at 9% per annum on the enhanced compensation instead of 6% awarded by the Tribunal.
There would be an enhancement of Rs. 3,49,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. on the enhanced compensation awarded from the date of petition till its realization.
For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 7-3-2015, passed in MVC No. 103/2013, by the Senior Civil Judge and Member, Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hiriyur, is hereby modified, awarding a sum of Rs. 3,49,000/- in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at 8% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization.
2nd Respondent/Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest at 8% p.a., from the date of petition til) its realization, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Immediately on such deposit by the 2nd respondent/insurer, out of the enhanced compensation of Rs. 3,49,000/-, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the Fixed Deposit in the name of appellant No. 1, wife of the deceased, in any Nationalized or Scheduled or Grameena Bank, for a period of 10 years, renewable by another 10 years, with liberty reserved to her to withdraw the interest accrued on it, periodically.
A sum of Rs. 50,000/- each with proportionate interest shall be invested in the Fixed Deposit in the names of each of the appellant Nos. 2 and 3, in any Nationalized or Scheduled or Grameena Bank, till they attain 30 years, with liberty reserved to the appellant No. 1 to withdraw the interest accrued on it, till they attain 22 years for their welfare and from 23 years to 30 years, they are at liberty to withdraw the interest accrued on it, periodically.
A sum of Rs. 50,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the Fixed Deposit in the name of appellant No. 4, mother of the deceased, in any Nationalized or Scheduled or Grameena Bank, for a period of 5 years, renewable by another 5 years, with liberty reserved to her to withdraw the interest accrued on it, periodically.
Remaining sum of Rs. 99,000/- with proportionate interests shall be released in favour of the appellant Nos. 1, 4 and 5 in equal proportion immediately.
Draw the award accordingly.