Smt. Uma vs Prakash

N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the appellants-claimants is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 7-8-2015, passed in MVC No. 112/2014, by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ramanagara, (hereinafter referred to as �Tribunal� for short), for enhancement of compensation, on the ground that, a sum of Rs. 11,97,500/- awarded by the Tribunal under different heads with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till date of realization, as against the claim of Rs. 20,00,000/- on account of the death of the deceased Sri. Raghu, P., in the road traffic accident is inadequate.

In brief, the facts of the case are :

The appellants are the wife, minor daughter and parents of the deceased. They filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation against the respondents, on account of the death of the deceased in the road traffic accident, contending that, on 10-12-2013 at 12.15 p.m. deceased was travelling in a motorcycle bearing Reg. No. KA.05.JB.132 and when he came near Maralvadi-Harohalli road, at that time, the driver of the lorry bearing Reg. No.KA.42.733 came with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the deceased. As a result, deceased fell down from the motor cycle, suffered grievous injuries and died on the spot.

It is the further ease of the appellants that, deceased was aged about 30 years, hale and healthy prior to the accident, Mason by profession and earning Rs. 600/- per day and looking after the welfare of the family by contributing his entire earnings to the family.

The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and other material available on file, has allowed the claim petition in part and awarded the compensation of Rs. 11,97,500/- under different heads with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization.

Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation and the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants have presented this appeal, for enhancement.

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned counsel for 2nd respondent/insurer.

The submission of the learned counsel Sri. Shantharaj K. appearing for the appellants, at the outset is that, the Tribunal has erred in not assessing the income of the deceased reasonably, on the ground that, deceased was aged about 30 years, Mason by profession, dependants are his wife, minor daughter and parents and he was the only earning member in the family. Therefore, he submitted that the income of the deceased may be re-assessed between Rs. 9,000/- to Rs. 9,500/- per month, after deducting �th towards personal and living expenses and applying �17� multiplier, reasonable compensation may be awarded towards loss of dependency. Further he submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards conventional heads and the rate of interest awarded at 6% p.a. is on the lower side and contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified by awarding reasonable compensation.

As against this, learned counsel appearing for 2nd respondent/insurer, inter alia, contended and substantiated that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file and therefore, it does not call for interference.

After hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties and after careful perusal of the material available on record at threadbare, including the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the only point that arises for our consideration is :

Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.

Occurrence of the accident and the resultant death of the deceased are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that appellants are the wife, minor daughter and parents of the deceased. It is the case of the appellants that deceased was aged about 30 years, hale and healthy prior to the accident, only earning member in the family and doing Mason work. The Tribunal, has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 7,500/- per month, which is on the lower side and is liable to be enhanced. Having regard to the age, occupation of the deceased and the year of accident, we re-assess his income at Rs. 9,000/- per month to meet the ends of justice instead of Rs. 7,500/- per month as assessed by the Tribunal. Out of which, if �th (Rs. 2,250/-) is deducted towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased, his contribution to the family comes to Rs. 6,750/- per month The proper multiplier applicable is �17� since deceased was aged about 30 years as rightly adopted by the Tribunal in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma�s case. Therefore, we determine the loss of dependency at Rs. 13,77,000/- (Rs. 6,750/- x 12 x 17) instead of Rs. 11,47,500/- as awarded by the Tribunal and accordingly, it is awarded.

As rightly submitted by the learned counsel appearing for appellants the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards conventional heads is on the lower side and the same is liable to be enhanced. It is significant to note that, on account of the ultimately death of the deceased, who was the only earning member in the family, appellant No. 1, wife, has lost her companion at her young age of 25 years, appellant No. 2 minor daughter is deprived of the love and affection, guidance and security of her father and appellant Nos. 4 and 5 parents of the deceased have lost the love and affection and security of her son. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court, we deem it fit to award a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 2,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- to the each of the appellant Nos. 1 to 4, Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 25,000/- towards transportation and further expenses. In all, the appellants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 17,27,000/- instead of Rs. 11,97,500/- as awarded by the Tribunal.

Regarding rate of interest, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, 6% interest per annum awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side, since the accident is of the year 2013. In the light of the judgment of Apex Court and this Court, we award the rate of interest at 9% per annum on the enhanced compensation instead of 6% awarded by the Tribunal.

There would be an enhancement of Rs. 5,29,500/- with interest at 9% p.a. on the enhanced compensation awarded from the date of petition till its realization.

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 7-8-2015, passed in MVC No. 112/2014, by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rumanagara, is hereby modified, awarding a sum of Rs. 5,29,500/- in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at 9% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization.

2nd respondent/insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest at 9% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Immediately on such deposit by the 2nd respondent/insurer, out of the enhanced compensation of Rs. 5,29,500/- a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the Fixed Deposit in the name of appellant No. 1, wife of the deceased, in any Nationalized or Scheduled or Grameena Bank, for a period of 10 years, renewable by another 10 years, with liberty reserved to her to withdraw the interest accrued on it, periodically.

A sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the Fixed Deposit in the name of appellant No. 2, in any Nationalized or Grameena Bank, till she attains 30 years, with liberty reserved to the appellant No. 2 to withdraw the interest accrued on it, till she attains 22 years for her welfare and from 23 years to 30 years, they are at liberty to withdraw the interest accrued on it, periodically.

A sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the Fixed Deposit in the name of appellant No. 3, mother of the deceased, in any Nationalized or Scheduled or Grameena Bank, for a period of 05 years, renewable by another 05 years with liberty reserved to her to withdraw the interest accrued on it, periodically.

Remaining sum of Rs. 1,29,500/- with proportionate interests shall be released in favour of the appellant Nos. 1, 3 and 4 in equal proportion immediately.

Draw the award accordingly.

Learned counsel Sri. B.C. Shivanne Gowda, is permitted to file vakalth for R2 within four weeks.