Somashekar vs Vakil Housing Development Corpn. Pvt. Ltd.

N.K. Patil and Budihal R.B., JJ.—This appeal by the appellants-claimants is arising out of the impugned common judgment and award dated 02/09/2010 passed in MVC No. 386/2007, by the Additional District Judge and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-IL Hassan, (hereinafter referred to as ''Tribunal'' for short), for enhancement of compensation, on the ground that a sum of Rs. 4,70,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under different heads, with interest at 6% per annum against the claim of Rs. 20,00,000/-, on account of the death the deceased Sri. Kushal, in the road traffic accident is inadequate. In brief, the facts of the case are:

The appellant Nos. 1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased Sri. Kushal. They filed a claim petition before the Tribunal u/s 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 8.12.2006 at about 6.00 a.m. near Semi Lab Factory, NH 48, B. M. Road, Bangalore Rural District, the deceased and other three persons were travelling in Tata Sumo bearing Reg. No. KA.01.C.427 from Bangalore to Channarayapatna. The driver of the Tata Sumo drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the lorry bearing Reg. No. KA.19.AC.9090. Due to which, deceased and other inmates sustained injuries. Immediately, they were shifted to Government Hospital, Nelamangala, wherein Kushal was declared as dead.

It is the further case of the appellants that, deceased was aged about 22 years, hale and healthy prior to the accident and driver by profession and in addition, he was also doing agricultural work and earning Rs. 18,000/- per month and he was the only earning member in the family. Due to his untimely death, appellant Nos. 1 and 2 have lost their son, who was their future hopes and security, apart from mental shock and agony and now there are no persons to look after the agricultural operations.

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. 4,70,000/- under different heads, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.

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

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned counsel for Insurer.

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that, the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 5,000/- per month which is on lower side and it needs to be re-assessed reasonably. To substantiate the said submission, he submitted that, deceased was a driver by profession and also doing agricultural work and earning Rs. 6,000/- per month as salary, Rs. 4,500/- towards bata and Rs. 8,000/- from agricultural operations and in all Rs. 18,000/- per month. But this aspect of the matter has not been looked into or considered or appreciated by the Tribunal while awarding compensation. Further he submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards conventional heads is on lower side and it need to be enhanced. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified.

As against this, learned counsel appearing for the Insurer, inter-alia, contended and submitted that the 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 the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the materials available on record, 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?

The occurrence of the accident and resultant death of the deceased are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that deceased was aged about 22 years, hale and healthy prior to the accident, driver by profession and also doing agricultural work and the dependants are his parents. Further, it emerges that, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 5,000/- per month, which is on lower side and it needs to be enhanced. It is the case of the appellants that deceased being driver by profession was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month towards salary, Rs. 4,500/- towards bata and also earning Rs. 8,000/- from agricultural operations and in all Rs. 18,000/- per month. But to prove the same, appellants have not produced any documents. Therefore, having regard to the age, occupation and the year of the accident, we re-assess the income of the deceased at Rs. 6,000/- per month instead of Rs. 5,000/- per month as assessed by the Tribunal. Out of which, if 50% ( Rs. 3,000/- ) is deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased since he was a bachelor, his net income comes to Rs. 3,000/- per month. The Tribunal has adopted Multiplier of ''15'' taking the age of the younger (parent, mother of the deceased as 44 years, since deceased was a bachelor, which is just and proper and we accept the same. Therefore, we redetermine the loss of dependency at Rs. 5,40,000/- ( Rs. 3,000/- x 12 x 14) instead of Rs. 4,50,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal and accordingly, it is awarded.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we award a sum of Rs. 45,000/- towards conventional heads, such as, loss of love and affection, loss of estate and transportation and funeral expenses instead of Rs. 20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. In all, the appellants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 5,85,000/- instead of Rs. 4,70,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. There would be an enhancement of Rs. 1,15,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization (excluding the interest for the delayed period of 234 days in filing the appeal). For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants is allowed in part and the impugned judgment and award dated 02/09/2010 passed in MVC No. 386/2007, by the Additional District Judge and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Hassan, is hereby modified, awarding the compensation of Rs. 1,15,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization (excluding interest for delayed period of 234 days in filing the appeal), in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

The 2nd respondent-Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 15,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization (excluding interest for delayed period of 234 days in filing the appeal), 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. 1,15,000/-, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in Fixed Deposit, in the names of each of the appellant Nos. 1 and 2, in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank, for a period of five years and renewable by another five years, with liberty reserved to them to withdraw the interest accrued on it, periodically.

The remaining sum of Rs. 15,000/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 in equal proportion, immediately.

Draw the award, accordingly.