AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Though this appeal is listed for orders, with consent it is taken up for final disposal. This is a claimants'' appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation in respect of the death of one Narasimha Murthy in a motor accident.
For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal would be referred to by their rankings as they are arrayed in the claim petition before the Tribunal.
The claimants who are the wife and the children of the deceased Narasimha Murthy instituted claim petition against the respondents who are the owner, driver and insurer of the lorry involved in the accident claiming compensation on account of death of the deceased Narasimha Murthy in the motor accident.
It is their case that the deceased was aged 32 years, a milk vendor and agriculturist by occupation, earning more than Rs. 15,000/- per month.
According to the claimants on 18.1.2009 at about 11.30 a.m. the deceased Narasimha Murthy was riding his motor cycle bearing Registration No. KA-02-EE-473;from Gunjur towards Bangalore. While he was on the....road in between the said two places and was near Makali Durga cross a lorry bearing registration No. AP-02-W-2741 driven by its driver at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner came and dashed against him, due to which, he sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. They have no other source of income. The respondents being owner, driver and insurer of the offending lorry are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to them as claimed in the claim petition.
After service of notice, the first respondent and second respondent, who are the owner and driver of the offending vehicle remained absent, hence they were placed ex-parte. The third respondent - insurance company appeared and contested the claim of the petitioners. They contended that the accident in question has not taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. On the other hand, it was due to the negligence of the deceased himself. They admitted having issued a valid policy in respect of the lorry involved in the accident which was in force, but contended that their liability if any is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy issued by them. They denied all other averments, which are not specifically traversed and contended as the accident has not taken place due to the negligence of the driver of the lorry, they are not liable to pay any compensation and sought for dismissal of the petition.
On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:
Whether the petitioners prove that Narasimhamurthy died due to injuries sustained in an accident occurred on 18.1.2009 at about 11.30 a.m. near Makali Durga cross, Bangalore which was due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No. AP-02-W-2741 by its driver?
Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, at what amount and from which respondent?
What award or order?
The claimants in support of their case got examined first petitioner who is the wife of the deceased as PW. 1 and produced 10 documents, which came to be marked as Exs.P.1 to P.10. On behalf of the respondents, they got examined one of their officer as RW.1 and produced 4 documents, which came to be marked as Exs.R.1 to R.4.
The Tribunal on considering the oral and documentary evidence placed on record held that the accident in question has taken place due to actionable negligence of the driver of the lorry resulting in death of the deceased. It further on the basis of the material on record took the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,500/- per month, deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased and having regard to his age applied the multiplier of 16 and awarded compensation of Rs. 4,47,936/- towards loss of dependency. It further awarded a sum of Rs. 30,000/- under conventional heads. Thus in all, the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 4,77,936/- which had rounded off to Rs. 4,78,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. It further saddled the liability of payment of compensation on respondents 1 and 3 jointly and severally.
The appellants/claimants being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation are in appeal before this Court.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants contended that the Tribunal has erred in not awarding commensurate compensation to the claimants under the head loss of dependency. In this connection elaborating his submission he contended though the claimants had contended that the deceased was aged 32 years and was earning more than Rs. 12,000/- per month by his occupation as a milk vendor and agriculturist, the Tribunal without appreciating the material on record has taken the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,500/- per month and has awarded lesser compensation towards loss of dependency. He further contended that the compensation awarded under the conventional heads is also on the lower side having regard to the age of the first claimant and therefore, a case for enhancement is made out.
Per contra, learned counsel for the contesting insurer supported the impugned judgment and award of the tribunal.
Taking the rival contentions into consideration, evidence and documents placed before us, the point that arises for our consideration is:-
Whether the claimants have made out a case for enhancement?
The accident having taken place on account of the actionable negligence of the driver of the lorry resulting in the death of the deceased and the liability of the insurer are not disputed before this court.
It is the case of the claimants the deceased Narasimha Murthy was aged 32 years, an agriculturist and was carrying on milk vending business. He was earning more than Rs. 12,000/- per month. In support of their claim in respect of the income, they did not place any substantive evidence and therefore, the tribunal took the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,500/- per month. The accident has taken place in the year 2009. The deceased was aged 32 years. Even taking him to be an agricultural coolie having regard to his age, in our view he would have earned atleast a sum of Rs 150/- per day ignoring his income from milk vending business. Taking the same into consideration, we are of the view that the monthly income of the deceased would be Rs. 4,500/- as against Rs. 3,500/- as held by the Tribunal. The claimants are the wife and children of the deceased. Therefore, the proper deduction to be allowed as done by the Tribunal is 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased. Deducting 1/3rd out of the monthly income of the deceased towards his personal expenses, Rs. 3,000/- would be the monthly loss of dependency to the claimants. It is undisputed that the deceased was aged 32 years. Therefore, the multiplier that becomes applicable to the facts of the case is 16. Taking all these factors into consideration, the claimants in all are entitled to a sum of Rs. 5,76,000/- towards loss of dependency as against Rs. 4,47,936/- awarded by the Tribunal.
Further we find from the impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 30,000/- under the conventional heads. The first claimant is a young lady aged about 28 years. The other claimants who are minors are aged about 9 and 7 years. Therefore, in these circumstances, we deem it fit to award a sum of Rs. 20,000/- in addition to Rs. 30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards conventional heads, which would be just and proper compensation under the conventional heads. Thus in our view, the claimants in all would be entitled for total compensation of Rs. 6,26,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation as against Rs. 4,77,936 rounded off to Rs. 4,78,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation comes to Rs. 1,48,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. In the result for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The appellants/claimants are awarded an enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,48,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation over and above the compensation that has been awarded by the Tribunal.
(iii) Third respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit the entire enhanced compensation with interest before the Jurisdictional Tribunal within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment and award.
(iv) Apportionment of the enhanced compensation awarded to the claimants shall be in the same manner as has been done by the Tribunal and the entire enhanced compensation as per the apportionment made in favour of the appellants shall be deposited in a Fixed Deposit in any Nationalised/Schedule bank. The amount apportioned to the 1st appellant shall be kept in deposit for a period of 5 years renewable by further period of 5 years. In so far as appellants 2 and 3 are concerned, it shall be in deposit till they attain majority and the first appellant is entitled to withdraw the interest accrued on the said deposits periodically.
Office to draw the award accordingly.