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 10th March 2010, passed in MVC No. 479/2008, by the Additional Sessions Fast Track Judge & Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chitradurga, (for short, ''Tribunal'') for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 2,61,000/- awarded in favour of the claimants as against their claim for Rs. 20,00,000/-, is inadequate. The facts in brief are that, the claimants are the wife and major children of the deceased G.H. Bheema Char. They filed the claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that, at about 6:00 AM, on 06-04-2008, when the deceased was moving on his TVS Excel Motor Cycle, bearing Registration No. KA-06/R-793, slowly on the left side of the road from Hiriyur to his native place at Hemadala near Chammanahally gate on SH-19 road, at that time, all of a sudden, a Bajaj Tempo Trax, bearing Registration No. KA-03/MC-1458, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came from Challakere side and dashed against the TVS Moped in which, the deceased was proceeding. Due to the impact, the deceased suffered fatal injuries and died at the spot itself.
It is the case of the appellants that, the deceased was aged about 60 years and doing agriculture and also goldsmith work, earning a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month and was hale and healthy prior to the accident. On account of the untimely death of the deceased, the appellants have lost the love and affection, inspiration and guidance, apart from social, financial and moral support and therefore, they have to be compensated reasonably.
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 10th March, 2010. 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. 2,61,000/- 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.
Shri. Spoorthy Hegde, learned counsel appearing for claimants/appellants vehemently submitted that, the Tribunal grossly erred in taking the income of the deceased at only Rs. 3,000/- per month. He submits that the claimants have stated that the deceased was aged about 60 years and earning a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month by doing agriculture and goldsmith work and was having rich experience. But, disbelieving the same, the Tribunal, without any basis has assessed the income of the deceased at only Rs. 3,000/- per month. The same is liable to be re-assessed. Therefore, he submitted that, reasonable compensation may be awarded, by adopting proper multiplier and deducting 1/4th towards the personal expenses of the deceased and the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal may be modified.
As against this, Smt. Harini Shivanand, learned counsel appearing for Insurer vehemently submitted that the compensation awarded by Tribunal is after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file. Further, she submitted that the Tribunal is justified in deducting 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased as against 1/4th sought by the learned counsel appearing for claimants, for the reason that all the claimants are majors and that major sons are not dependent on the income of the father and hence, interference in the same is not called for.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, and after careful perusal of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the only point that arise for our consideration in this appeal is,
Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal is just and reasonable?
The undisputed facts of the case are the occurrence of accident and the resultant death of the deceased. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was aged about 60 years and doing agriculture and goldsmith work. It is stated that he was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. But, to substantiate the same, the appellants have not produced any credible documentary evidence. But, it can be seen that the Tribunal is also not justified in assessing the income of the deceased at only Rs. 3,000/- per month. The same is on the lower side and needs to be re-assessed. The accident is of the year 2008 and the deceased was aged about 60 years and would have had rich experience in making ornamental jewellary, which is a skilled job. Therefore, having regard to the age, avocation and also the year of accident, we re-assess the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,000/- per month. Further, even though the claimants are four in number, all the children are major and not dependent on the income of the father. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel appearing for Insurer, we deduct 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased. Accordingly, If 1/3rd (i.e. Rs. 1,333/-) is deducted from Rs. 4,000/- towards his personal expenses, the net income would be Rs. 2,667/- per month. Further, it is stated that the deceased was aged about 60 years as on the date of accident. Therefore, for the said age, the proper multiplier applicable is ''9'' as per the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, as rightly adopted by Tribunal. Thus, the compensation towards loss of dependency would work out to Rs. 2,88,036/- (i.e. Rs. 2,667/- x 12 x''9'') as against Rs. 2,16,000/- awarded by Tribunal.
Further, the Tribunal is justified in awarding Rs. 45,000/- towards conventional heads, viz. loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, loss of estate and transportation of dead body and funeral expenses and the same as per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma''s case (supra). Hence, interference in the same is not called for. Thus, the total compensation payable to claimants works out to Rs. 3,33,036/- as against Rs. 2,61,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. There would be enhancement of compensation by a sum of Rs. 72,036/- 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 appellant is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 10th March 2010, passed in MVC No. 479/2008, by the Additional Sessions Fast Track Judge & M.A.C.T., Chitradurga, is hereby modified, awarding a sum of Rs. 3,33,036/- as against Rs. 2,61,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at 6% per annum on the enhanced sum, from the date of petition till the date of realization. Thus, there would be enhancement of compensation by a sum of Rs. 72,036/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.
The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 72,036/-, with interest thereon at 6% per annum, within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment.
Immediately on such deposit by the Insurance Company, a sum of Rs. 40,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the name of first appellant-wife of deceased, in Fixed Deposit, in any scheduled/Nationalized Bank, for a period of five years, renewable by another five years, with liberty reserved to her to withdraw the periodical interest.
Remaining sum of Rs. 32,036/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the appellant No. 1, immediately.
Office to draw award, accordingly.