AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil, J.—Though this matter is posted in orders list, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal. This appeal by the claimants is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 3rd December 2012, passed in MVC No. 8949/2010, by the IV Additional Judge, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore (SCCH-6), (for short, ''Tribunal'') for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 2,55,700/-, awarded in their favour as against their claim for Rs. 25,00,000/-, is inadequate.
The facts in brief are that, the claimants are the parents of the deceased Narayanaswamy. They filed the claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that, at about 2:00 P.M., on 05-09-2010, when the deceased along with other passengers proceeding towards Mulbagal from Kantharaj Circle, in a passenger Auto bearing Registration No. KA-07/9438, at NH-4, on Bangalore - Chennai Road in between Jammanahalli V Guttahalli, a KSRTC Bus, bearing Registration No. KA-07/F-1166 came at a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner from their opposite direction and hit their Auto. Due to the impact, the passengers in the said Auto were caught inside the vehicle and deceased Narayanaswamy sustained grievous head injuries and succumbed to the same at the spot.
It is the case of the appellants that, the deceased was aged about 28 years and being a B.Ed. graduate, working as Teacher at Subash High School, Karanjikatte, Kolar Town, earning a sum of Rs. 12,000/- per month and was hale and healthy prior to the accident. On account of the untimely death of the deceased, the claimants/parents have lost the love and affection apart from social and moral support and also financial 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 3rd December, 2012. 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. 2,55,700/- 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 Corporation, for quite some time.
Learned counsel appearing for appellants at the outset submits that the Tribunal grossly erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at only Rs. 4,500/-, when in fact, the deceased was a B.Ed. graduate and working as Teacher in a School, getting salary of around Rs. 12,000/- per month.
Further, he submits that, the Tribunal also erred in adding only 30% towards future prospects of the Tribunal, when in fact, as per the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, , the claimants are entitled to additional 50% of the income towards future prospects of the deceased towards loss of dependency. Therefore, he submits reasonable income of the deceased may be assessed, adding 50% towards future prospects, deducting 50% towards personal expenses and adopting multiplier of ''13'' having regard to the age of the younger parent, i.e. mother of deceased and compensation may be awarded towards loss of dependency and also under conventional heads and the impugned judgment and award may be modified accordingly.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation submits that the compensation awarded by Tribunal is after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file and hence, it does not call for interference. However, he does not dispute regarding the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma''s case (supra) in respect of addition of 50% towards future prospects of the deceased and fairly submits that the same may be considered in accordance with law.
Further, he vehemently submitted that the Tribunal grossly erred in directing the Corporation to indemnify the entire award amount, without reserving liberty to the Corporation to file necessary application in the proceeding in M.V.C. No. 8949/2010 to recover 25% towards contributory negligence fixed on the part of the driver of the Passenger Auto bearing Registration No. KA-07/9438. To substantiate the said submission, he relied upon the full bench decision of this Court reported in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Arun alias Aravind, and submitted that at paragraph 12 of the said judgment, liberty is reserved to the Corporation to proceed against the driver/owner of the offending vehicle by filing an application in the same proceedings. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal may be modified, reserving liberty to the respondent Corporation to proceed against the driver, owner and Insurer of the offending Passenger Auto bearing Registration No. KA-07/9438, in the very same proceedings, in accordance with law.
After hearing the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and after perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, including the original records placed before us, the only point that arise for our consideration in this appeal is,
Whether the compensation awarded by Tribunal is just and reasonable?
After going through the material placed before us, it emerges that occurrence of accident and the resultant death of the deceased in the road traffic accident are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was aged about 28 years, a B.Ed. graduate and working as Teacher in a School. But, the brother of the deceased has given a statement stating that the deceased was working as a carpenter. Mere contradictory statements do not take away the legitimate entitlement of compensation by the claimants. Therefore, having regard to the age, avocation and the year of accident, we re-assess the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 6,000/- per month. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for appellants, 50% is to be added towards future prospects of the deceased as per the law laid down in Sarla Verma''s case (supra). Accordingly, if 50% (i.e. Rs. 3,000/-) is added to the aforesaid income of the deceased, the total income comes to Rs. 9,000/-. Out of this, since the deceased was unmarried, 50% is to be deducted towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased as per Sarla Verma''s case (supra). Accordingly, if 50% (i.e. Rs. 4,500/-) is deducted from it, the net income comes to Rs. 4,500/-. Further, since the deceased was a bachelor, the age of the younger parent has to be taken into consideration for adopting multiplier. The age of the younger parent, i.e. mother of deceased is shown as 48 years at the time of accident in the cause title, but, the Tribunal on the basis of the Voter I.D. issued by the Election Commission of India and other relevant material, has held that the mother of the deceased was aged about 65 years as on the date of accident. We accept the same and consider the age of the mother of deceased as 65 years as on the date of accident and for the said age, the appropriate multiplier applicable is ''7'', in view of the aforesaid judgment. Thus, the compensation towards loss of dependency would work out to Rs. 3,78,000/- (i.e. Rs. 4,500/- x 12 x ''7'') as against Rs. 2,45,700/- awarded by Tribunal.
Further, so far as compensation awarded towards conventional heads, i.e. loss of estate, loss of love and affection and transportation of dead body and funeral expenses is concerned, we are of the considered view that a sum of Rs. 45,000/- awarded under the said heads is just and proper and as per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma''s case (supra). Therefore, interference in the same is uncalled for.
Thus, the total compensation payable to appellants comes to Rs. 4,23,000/- as against Rs. 2,55,700/- awarded by Tribunal with interest at 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization. There would be enhancement of compensation by a sum of Rs. 1,67,300/-.
In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the appeal filed by appellants is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 3rd December 2012, passed in MVC No. 8949/2010, by the IV Additional Judge, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore (SCCH-6), is hereby modified, awarding a sum of Rs. 4,23,000/- as against Rs. 2,55,700/- awarded by Tribunal, with interest at 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization;
Respondent/Corporation is reserved liberty to proceed against the driver, owner and insurer of the offending Passenger Auto bearing Registration No. KA-07/9438 in the very same proceedings, as per the reasoning recorded by Tribunal at paragraph 12, internal page 10 of its judgment, wherein it has fixed contributory negligence on the driver of the said vehicle at 25% and 75% on the part of the driver of KSRTC Bus;
The Respondent/Corporation is directed to deposit the compensation awarded by Tribunal as also the enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,67,300/-, with interest thereon at 6% per annum, after deducting the amount, if any already deposited by it, within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment and award.
On such deposit by Respondent/Corporation, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the name of the second appellant-mother 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. 67,300/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the appellant Nos. 1 and 2, in equal proportion, immediately.
Office to draw award, accordingly.