AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. Sreenivase Gowda
This appeal is by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
Heard. The appeal is admitted and with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, it; is taken up for final disposal.
For the sake of convenience parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Tribunal.
As there is no dispute regarding death of the deceased Hoysala @ Honnappa, aged about 32 years, in a road traffic accident occurred on 9-1-10 due to rash and negligent driving of KSRTC bus bearing registration No. KA-13-F-1585 by its driver and liability of the KSRTC, the only point that, remains for my consideration in the appeal is:
Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper or does it call for enhancement?
After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the award of the Tribunal, I am of the view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not just and proper, it is on the lower side and therefore it is deserved to be enhanced.
Deceased was aged about 32 years at the time of his death in the accident as evident from post mortem report - Ex.P.5 and multiplier applicable to his age group is ''16''. Claimants, who are his wife and two minor children, in support of their contention that deceased by working as an autorickshaw driver and doing agriculture was earning Rs. 400/- to Rs. 500/- per day and Rs. 2,50,000/- per annum from agriculture, have examined the first claimant - wife of the deceased as P.W.1 and have produced RTC extract - Ex P.8. No documents are produced to show deceased was working as an auto driver. Ex.P.8 - RTC extract shows 2 acres 5 guntas of land standing in the name of the deceased. Considering his age as 32 years, year of accident as 2010 and profession as agriculture his income can be easily assessed at Rs. 4,000/- per month as against Rs. 3,000/- per month assessed by the Tribunal. 1/3rd of his income deducted by the Tribunal towards his personal expenses is just and proper. So, loss of dependency works out to Rs. 5,12,000/- (Rs. 4,000/- x 2/3 x 12 x 16) and it is awarded as against Rs. 3,84,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under this head.
Rs. 10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of consortium is just and proper and there is no scope for enhancement.
A sum of Rs, 15,000/- is awarded towards loss of love and affection as against Rs. 5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under this head:
A sum of Rs. 10,000/- is awarded towards funeral and obsequies expenses as against. Rs. 5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under this head.
A sum of Rs. 10,000/- is awarded towards loss of estate.
Thus claimants are entitled for the following compensation:
1) Loss of dependency
Rs. 5,12,000/-
2) Loss of consortium in
respect of first claimant
Rs. 10,000/-
3) Loss of love and affection
to claimants 2 and 3
Rs. 15,000/-
3) Loss of estate
Rs. 10,000/-
4) Funeral expenses
Rs. 10,000/-
Rs. 5,57,000/-
Accordingly, appeal is allowed in part and judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent stated herein above. Claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 5,57,000/- as against Rs. 4,04,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest: at 6% p.a. on the additional compensation of Rs. 1,53,000/- from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation.
KSRTC is directed to deposit the additional compensation amount with interest: within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, from which Rs. 40,000/- each with'' proportionate interest is ordered to be invested in F.D. in any nationalized or scheduled Bank in the name of the claimants for a period of 12 years in ease of first claimant and till the date of attaining majority in the ease of second and third claimants, with a right of option for the first claimant to renew the deposits from time to time and withdraw interest periodically and the remaining amount with proportionate interest is ordered to be released in favour of the first claimant.
Sri. F.S. Dabali who was directed to take notice for the respondent and who has argued the ease on their behalf is granted two weeks time to file Vakalath.
No order as to costs.