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 22nd July 2010, passed in MVC No. 8507/2008, by the XXVI Additional Small Causes Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, (for short, ''Tribunal'') for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- awarded in favour of the claimants as against their claim for Rs. 10,80,000/-, is inadequate. The facts in brief are that, the claimant No. 1 is the wife and claimant Nos. 2 to 7 are the children of deceased K.C. Siddappa. They filed the claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that, at about 9:30 A.M., on 20-01-2008, when the deceased was going as a pedestrian towards Mahadevapura on Nelamangala, Kunigal Road, near Mahadevapura, a Swaraj Mazda bearing Registration No. KA-52/0026, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came and dashed against the deceased. Due to the impact, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Prasad Nursing Home at Nelamangala for first aid and thereafter shifted to Sanjay Gandhi hospital, Bangalore, where he took treatment as in-patient from 20-01-2008 to 31-01-2008. But, unfortunately, he died in spite of the best treatment given.
It is the case of the appellants that, the deceased was aged about 60 years and was working as Archak in addition to doing agricultural work, earning a sum of Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- per month and hale and healthy prior to the accident. On account of the untimely death of the deceased K.C. Siddappa, the first appellant has lost her life partner, the children have lost the love and affection, 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 22nd July, 2010. 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. 1,00,000/- 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.
I have gone through the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal and heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and second respondent/Insurer, for quite some time.
Learned counsel appearing for appellants vehemently submitted that, the Tribunal grossly erred in assessing the age of the deceased as 66 to 70 years on the basis of the age of the son and grandson. He submits that as per inquest report, the deceased was aged about 60 years and therefore, the age of the deceased could have been assessed at least as 61-65 years and applied the proper multiplier for arriving at the loss of dependency. Further, he submitted that the monthly income of Rs. 3,000/- assessed by Tribunal is also on the lower side since the deceased was an Archak by profession and also doing agriculture and was the only earning member in the family. Therefore, he submitted that reasonable income may be re-assessed and reasonable enhancement may be made by modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal.
As against this, learned counsel appearing for Insurer, inter alia contended and substantiated the judgment and award passed by Tribunal stating that the same is passed after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file and after consideration of the entire material available on file including the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for both parties and hence, the compensation awarded by Tribunal is just and reasonable and it does not call for interference.
After hearing learned counsel appearing for the appellants and also the learned counsel appearing for the Insurer and after careful perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the only point that arise for my consideration in this appeal is:
Whether the compensation awarded by Tribunal is just and reasonable?
After careful perusal of the entire material available on file, it can be seen that, the first appellant, the wife of deceased K.C. Siddappa has died during the pendency of this appeal. The remaining claimants are all sons and daughters of deceased and are all majors. Occurrence of accident and the resultant death of the deceased are not in dispute. It is stated that the deceased was aged about 60 years. The Tribunal has re-assessed the age of the deceased as 66-70 years, having regard to the age of the son and grandson of deceased. But, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the year of accident and other relevant aspect, I re-assess the age of the deceased as 61-65 years, to meet the ends of justice.
Further, it is seen that, the Tribunal has erred in not assessing reasonable income of the deceased. A sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month assessed by Tribunal is on the lower side and liable to be re-assessed. The accident is of the year 2008 and the deceased was working as an Archak and also doing agriculture and was richly experienced in both the fields. Therefore, having regard to the age, avocation and also the year of accident and also the number of dependents, I re-assess the income of the deceased at Rs. 5,000/- per month, to meet the ends of justice. The claimants are none other than the daughters and sons of deceased and all of them are majors. There is no loss of dependency. But, they are entitled to compensation towards loss of estate. Accordingly, having regard to the fact that there is no loss of dependency and the claimants are all major sons and daughters, I deduct 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased. Accordingly, If 50% (i.e. Rs. 2,500/-) is deducted from Rs. 5,000/- towards his personal expenses, the net income would be Rs. 2,500/- per month. I have already re-assessed the age of the deceased as 61-65 years. For the said age ground, I adopt the multiplier of ''7'' as per the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, as against ''5'' adopted by Tribunal. Thus, the compensation towards loss of estate would work out to Rs. 2,10,000/- (i.e. Rs. 2,500/- x 12 x''7'') as against Rs. 40,000/- awarded by Tribunal.
Further, the Tribunal has erred in awarding a sum of only Rs. 30,000/- towards conventional heads. The same is on the lower side As per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma''s case (supra), I award a sum of Rs. 45,000/- towards conventional heads, such as loss of consortium, loss of love and affection and transportation and funeral expenses as against Rs. 30,000/- awarded by Tribunal.
Further, a sum of Rs. 30,000/- awarded by Tribunal towards medical expenses and conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges is on the lower side for the reason that the deceased was alive for a period of 15 days after the accident occurred and he took treatment in various Hospitals. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I award a sum of Rs. 40,000/- towards medical expenses and conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges as against Rs. 30,000/- awarded by Tribunal. Thus, the total compensation would come to Rs. 2,95,000/- as against Rs. 1,00,000/- 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 22nd July 2010, passed in MVC No. 8507/2008, by the XXVI Additional Small Causes Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, is hereby modified, awarding a sum of Rs. 1,95,000/-, 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. 1,95,000/-, 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, the entire sum shall be released in favour of all the appellants, in equal proportion, immediately.
Office to draw award, accordingly.