AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the claimants is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 19.12.2009 passed in MVC No. 52/2008 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-III and MACT, Mysore. The Tribunal by its impugned judgment and award has awarded a sum of Rs. 97,000/- with interest at 6% from the date of petition till its realization on account of the death of the deceased Venkataswamy in the road traffic accident.
The claimants on the ground that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and it requires enhancement, have presented this appeal.
The brief facts of the case on hand are, 1st appellant alone had earlier filed a claim petition u/s 166 of the MV Act claiming compensation of 46,50,000/- on account of death of the deceased Venkatswamy in the road traffic accident that occurred on 23.9.2007 at about 1.20 p.m. when the deceased was boarding the bus bearing registration No. KA 09 F/3212 to go to house, due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus which suddenly moved, the deceased lost control and fell down from the said bus and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, was shifted to K.R. Hospital, Mysore. In spite of giving best medication he could not be saved and the deceased succumbed to the injuries at 3.30 p.m. Further she contended that deceased was aged about 62 years and by profession he was a retired driver of KSRTC bus drawing salary of Rs. 6,000/- per month. He was the only earning member of the family. Appellant No. 1 is a house wife. Due to the untimely death of the deceased, the social and economic condition of the family is affected and she has no other source of income except the pension of the deceased. Taking all these aspects into consideration, she had filed the claim petition without impleading the other appellants herein. The said matter had come up for consideration. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence available on record and also the age, avocation, year of the accident, has allowed the claim petition in part awarding a compensation of Rs. 97,000/- with interest at 6% from the date of petition till its realization. Being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed, the appellants herein have presented this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants at the outset is that the Tribunal has erred in not following due procedure as envisaged under the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and contrary to the well settled law of the Apex Court and this Court has awarded the compensation. Therefore, the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified by enhancing the compensation.
As against this, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-Corporation inter alia contended that substantial amount has been awarded by the Tribunal after due consideration of the oral and documentary and other evidence on record and also taking into consideration the age, avocation and date of accident. Therefore, interference is not called for by this Court.
After careful consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and after perusal of the impugned judgment and award and after evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence, the point that would arise for consideration is:
Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?
The occurrence of the accident resulting in death of the deceased in the road traffic accident is not in dispute. Further, it is not in dispute that deceased was aged 62 years as on the date of accident and was a retired driver of the KSRTC drawing a pension of Rs. 6,000/- per month. The appellants are none other than the wife and children. He was the only earning member of the family as contended by the first appellant. The Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the procedure as envisaged under the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act while awarding compensation on account of the death of the deceased.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances and also the age, avocation and year of the accident of the deceased, we can safely assess the income of the deceased at Rs. 6,000/- per month to meet the ends of justice, out of which, if 50% is deducted towards personal expenses, the net income would be Rs. 3,000/- per month. The deceased was aged 62 years and the appropriate multiplier would be 7, following the judgment of the Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, Accordingly, we re-determine the loss of dependency at Rs. 2,52,000/- (3000 � 12 � 7). Accordingly, it is awarded.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it fit to award Rs. 45,000/- towards conventional heads like loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, loss of estate, and transportation and funeral expenses. Thus in all claimants would be entitled to Rs. 2,97,000/- as against Rs. 97,000/- and there will be enhancement of Rs. 2,00,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 19.12.2009 passed in MVC No. 52/2008 on the file of Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-III and MACT, Mysore is hereby modified awarding an additional compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- with 6% interest from the date of petition till its realization.
The 2nd respondent-Corporation is directed to deposit the enhanced amount with interest within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment.
Out of the enhanced compensation, Rs. 80,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the name of the appellant No. 1 for a period of 10 years renewable for 10 years in any of the nationalized or scheduled bank and she is entitled to withdraw the interest periodically.
Rs. 1,20,000/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of all the appellants in equal proportion immediately after deposit by the 2nd respondent-Corporation.
Draw the award accordingly.