Smt. Lakshmamma and Others vs The Managing Director, K.S.R.T.C.

N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the claimants is directed against the judgment and award dated 26th February 2011, passed in MVC No. 8512/2008, by the XII Additional Small Causes, Judge, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, (for short, ''Tribunal'') for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 2,61,000/- 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 wife and five children of the deceased Mariswamy. They filed the claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that, at about 12:45 P.M. on 16-12-2008, when the rider of the KSRTC Bus bearing Registration No. KA-32/F-1071 drove the same on Gulbarga Lingasaguru road in a direction from Lingasagurur towards Sindhanur at high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger human life and after crossing Guragunta near Gowdur cross, he tried to over take a Lorry which was going ahead of him and in doing so, he came on the right side of the road and dashed his Bus against a Tata Indica Car bearing Registration No. KA-05/MA-9872 which was coming from opposite direction on the said road. As a result, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died while under treatment at Government Hospital, Lingasagur.

It is the case of the appellants that, the deceased was aged about 59 years and working in Real Estate business, earning a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month and was hale and healthy prior to the accident. He was the sole earning member in the family and 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, it is their case that 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 respondent. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 26th February, 2011. 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. 2,61,000/- 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 Corporation, for quite some time.

Learned counsel appearing for claimants/appellants vehemently submitted that, the Tribunal grossly erred in taking the income of the deceased at only Rs. 3,000/- per month. He submits that the claimants have stated that the deceased was aged about 59 years and a real estate businessman earning a sum of Rs. 30,000/- per month. But, the Tribunal, without any valid reasons, has assessed the income of the deceased at only Rs. 3,000/- per month. It ought to have assessed at least between Rs. 6,000/- and Rs. 7,000/- per month. Therefore, the monthly income assessed by Tribunal is liable to be re-assessed. Further, he submitted that, 1/3rd may be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased and reasonable compensation towards loss of dependency and also conventional heads be awarded by modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal.

As against this, learned counsel appearing for Corporation, inter alia contended and substantiated the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, stating that the same is passed after due consideration of the oral and documentary evidence available on file and the Tribunal is also justified in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- per month as the appellants have not produced the credible documentary evidence in support of their case that the deceased was doing real estate business and earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. Therefore, interference in the well considered and well reasoned order is uncalled for.

After hearing learned counsel appearing for the appellants, learned counsel appearing for Corporation, 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. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was aged about 59/60 years. It is stated that he was working as Real Estate businessman, earning a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month. But, in support of the same, the claimants have not produced any credible documentary evidence in support of their stand that he was earning the said income. But, it can be seen that the Tribunal is also not justified in assessing the income of the deceased at only Rs. 3,000/- per month. The same is on the lower side and needs to be reassessed. The accident is of the year 2008 and the deceased was aged about 59/60 years and stated to be working in real estate business Therefore, having regard to the age, avocation and also the year of accident, we re-assess the income of the deceased at Rs. 5,000/- per month. Further, even though the claimants are six in number, all the children were major and not entirely dependent on the deceased for their livelihood. Therefore, we deduct 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased. Accordingly, If 1/3rd (i.e. Rs. 1,666/-) is deducted from Rs. 5,000/- towards his personal expenses, the net income would be Rs. 3,334/- per month. Further, it is stated that the deceased was aged about 59/60 years as on the date of accident. Therefore, for the said age, the proper multiplier applicable is ''9'' as per the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma''s case (2009 ACJ 1298) as rightly adopted by Tribunal. Thus, the compensation towards loss of dependency would work out to Rs. 3,60,072/- (i.e. Rs. 3,334/- x 12 x ''9'') as against Rs. 2,16,000/-'' awarded by Tribunal.

Further, the Tribunal is justified in awarding Rs. 45,000/- towards conventional heads, viz. loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, loss of estate and transportation of dead body and funeral expenses and the same is as per the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma''s case (supra).

Thus, the total compensation payable to claimants works out to Rs. 4,05,072/- as against Rs. 2,61,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. There would be enhancement of compensation by a sum of Rs. 1,44,072/- 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 appellant is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 26th February 2011, passed in MVC No. 8512/2008, by the XII Additional Small Causes, Judge, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, is hereby modified, awarding a sum of Rs. 4,05,072/- as against Rs. 2,61,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at 6% per annum on the enhanced sum, from the date of petition till the date of realization. Thus, there would be enhancement of compensation by a sum of Rs. 1,44,072/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

The Corporation is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,44,072/-, with interest thereon at 6% per annum, within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment.

Immediately on such deposit by the Corporation, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the name the first appellant, in Fixed Deposit, in any scheduled/Nationalized Bank, for a period of five years, renewable by another five years, with liberty reserved to her to withdraw the periodical interest.

Remaining sum of Rs. 44,072/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the first appellant, immediately.

Office to draw award, accordingly.