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 14th September 2005, passed in MVC No. 3636/2003, by the VII Additional Judge & Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-3, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore (SCCH-3), (for short, ''Tribunal'') for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 1,93,000/- awarded in favour of the claimants as against their claim for Rs. 10,00,000/-, is inadequate. The facts in brief are that, the claimant No. 1 is the wife and claimant Nos. 2 to 4 are the minor children of deceased Muniraj. They filed the claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that, at about 2:30 P.M.; on 07-05-2003, near Nisarga Layout, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, when the deceased was unloading the granite stone, to the Tempo bearing Registration No. KA-25/A-3244, the driver of the said Tempo took the said Tempo in reverse direction without giving proper signal and the granite stones fell on the deceased and he died due to the said injuries sustained in the accident.
It is the case of the appellants that, the deceased was aged about 45 years and working as a Gardener, earning a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month and was hale and healthy prior to the accident. On account of the untimely death of the deceased, the claimants have lost the love and affection, inspiration and guidance and the claimant No. 1 has lost the life partner at an young age and also lost the social and moral support apart from financial security and therefore, they
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 14th September, 2005. 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. 1,93,000/- 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. It is stated that the deceased was aged about 45 years and working as a Gardener, earning a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month. The said amount stated is just and proper and we accept the same, having regard to the number of dependents, age avocation and the year of accident, being 2003.
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 45 years and working as a Gardener. We have re-assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 2,000/-, to meet the ends of justice. Therefore, 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. 2,600/- ( Rs. 2,000/- + Rs. 600/-). It is stated that the deceased was aged about 45 years. But, the Tribunal, after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence and based on the Post Mortem Report, re-assessed the age of the deceased as 40 years. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we accept the age of deceased as 40 years. For the said age, the proper multiplier applicable is ''15'' as per the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, as against ''14'' adopted by Tribunal. As number of dependents are four, we deduct 1/4th (i.e. Rs. 650/-) towards the personal expenses of the deceased. Accordingly, if 1/4* (i.e. Rs. 650/-) is deducted from Rs. 2,600/- towards his personal expenses, the net income would be Rs. 1,950/- per month. Thus, the compensation towards loss of dependency works out to Rs. 3,51,000/- (i.e. Rs. 1,950/- x 12 x''15'') as against Rs. 1,68,000/- awarded by Tribunal.
Further, the Tribunal has erred in awarding a sum of only Rs. 25,000/- towards conventional heads. The same is on the lower side. The dependents are wife and three minor children. 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 consortium, loss of estate, loss of love and affection and transportation and funeral expenses as against Rs. 25,000/- awarded by Tribunal.
Thus, the total compensation would come to Rs. 3,96,000/- as against Rs. 1,93,000/- 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 14th September 2005, passed in MVC No. 3636/2003, by the VII Additional Judge & Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-3, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore (SCCH-3), is hereby modified, awarding a sum of Rs. 2,03,000/-, 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. 2,03,000/-, with interest thereon at 6% per annum, excluding interest for the delayed period of 562 days in filing the appeal as per order dated 19/11/2009, 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. 50,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the name of the first appellant-wife of deceased, in Fixed Deposit, in any scheduled/Nationalized Bank, for a period of ten years, renewable by another ten years, with liberty reserved to her to withdraw the periodical interest.
A sum of Rs. 50,000/- each with proportionate interest shall be invested in the name of the appellant Nos. 3 and 4 - minor children of deceased, in Fixed Deposit, in any scheduled/ Nationalized Bank, till they attain the age of 25 years, with liberty reserved to the first appellant to withdraw the periodical interest, for their welfare.
Remaining sum of Rs. 53,000/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of appellant No. 1, immediately.
Office to draw award, accordingly.