Smt. Nagarathna Puttaraju vs Managing Director, KSRTC, Bangalore

Mrs. S. Sujatha, J. - This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, [the ''Tribunal'', for short] in MVC No. 3888/ 2009.

Briefly stated the facts are :

That the appellants are claimants, widow and children of the deceased Puttaraju who died in the road traffic accident which occurred on 27-8-2008 while travelling in a KSRTC Bus bearing Registration No. KA-42-F-088 [offending vehicle] from Bengaluru to Dharmasthala. It was contended that the accident occurred due to the actionable negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle which was insured with the respondent No. 2 herein. On issuance of notice,the respondents appeard and the claim was resisted. The Tribunal, after analyzing the evidence on record, awareded the total compensation of Rs. 5,90,000/- with interest at 6% per annum. Being dissatisfied, the claimants are before this Court as the compensation awarded being inadequate.

Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants assailing the impugned Judgment and Award, inter alia, contends that the deceased was a professional driver who possessed valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. Though the claimants contended that the deceased driver was earning Rs. 8,000/-per month, the Tribunal grossly erred in determining the monthly income of the deceased notionally at Rs. 4,500/-. The deceased being the driver, a skilled labourer, the Tribunal ought not to have determined the monthly income on par with the manual labourer. The compensation awarded under the different heads is too meager and contrary to the established principles of law enunciated by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of ''Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others'', reported in 2013 (9) SCC 54.

It is further contended that the rate of interest at 6% per annum is on the lower side which necessarily requires to be enhanced in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is further contended that the Tribunal grossly erred in denying the compensation towards future prospects. Accordingly, learned Counsel submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal necessarily requires enhancement.

Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent supports the impugned judgment and order and contends that the Tribunal after extensively considering the evidence on record, awarded just and reasonable compensation which does not call for interference by this Court.

Heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the material on record.

It is discerned that the deceased was aged about 35 at the time of the accident. Though it was contended by the claimants that the deceased was working as driver of auto and earning Rs. 8,000/- per month, no cogent evidence was placed on record to establish the factum of employment and the income. In the absence of the material evidence placed on record, the Tribunal determined the monthly income of the deceased notionally at Rs. 4,500/- which cannot be found fault with considering the date of the accident and the comparative study of the income determined by this Court in such identical circumstances. In such context, denial of future prospects is justifiable. However, it is evident that the four dependents who were the claimants approached the Tribunal seeking compensation. In such circumstances, one-fourth of the income of the deceased is required to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased in terms of the judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of ''Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another'', reported in [2009] 6 SCC 121 : (AIR 2009 SC 3104). Accordingly, the loss of dependency works out to Rs. 6,07,500/-.

It is settled principle of law that the claimants are entitled to just compensation considering the factual matrix of the case. The widow of the deceased was aged about 32 at the time of the accident. Besides that, the deceased had left two minor children and an aged father who were all dependents on the deceased. The untimely death of the deceased has caused unbearable loss to the family which is irrecuperable. Applying the principles of law rendered by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh (supra), it would be just and reasonable to award a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium; a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection; a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses; a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate.

The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified as under :

SI. No.

Particulars

Amount [in Rs.]

1

Loss of dependency

6,07,500

2

Loss of consortium

1,00,000

3

Loss of love and affection

1,00,000

4

Transportation of dead body and funeral expenses

25,000

5

Loss of estate

10,000

TOTAL

8,42,500

Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified to Rs. 8,42,500/- as against Rs. 5,90,000/-. The award amount shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the realization which is consistently awarded by this court.

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated above.