Suganda and Others vs Sangamesh and Others

B. Manohar, J.—1. Appellants are the claimants. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the judgment and award dated 26th September 2012 made in MVC No. 198/2012 by the Fast Track Court at Basavakalyan, District Bidar, (hereinafter referred to as ''Tribunal''), they have filed this appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation.

Appellants are the wife and minor children of one Veerayya Shivadhar. Their case is that on 25.10.2011, while the said Veerayya as a pillion rider was returning to his house on a motor bike bearing No. KA-39/J-8473 after attending a funeral ceremony of one of his relatives, due to rash and negligent riding of the said motor bike by one Nagayya as a rider had lost control over the bike and the bike got skidded. Due to that, Veerayya and Nagayya fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, Veerayya was shifted to Government Hospital, Humnabad for first aid and then to Dr. Vijay Patil, Hospital at Umerga for further treatment. Thereafter, he was shifted to Solapur for treatment and during the course of treatment, he succumbed to injuries on 12.11.2011. In the claim petition, it was contended that he was a gold smith by profession and earning a sum of Rs. 10,000/- p.m. He was a life member of Karnataka Board Silver Worker Federation. In view of his death in the accident, the family has lost the bread earner and sought for compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/-.

In pursuance of the notice issued by the Tribunal, though 1st respondent appeared through his counsel, he had not filed any written statement. The 2nd respondent -Insurance Company filed written statement denying the entire averments made in the claim petition and also contended that the rider of the motor bike was not having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation and sought for dismissal of the claim petition as against them.

On the basis of pleading of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues.

The claimants in order to prove their case got examined the 1st claimant as PW1 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P102. On behalf of the Insurance Company, the officer in legal department was examined as RW1 and the insurance policy was marked as Ex.R1.

The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties and taking into consideration the IMV report, spot panchanama, copy of the complaint etc., held that due to rash and negligent riding of the motor bike, the accident had occurred. Though the Insurance Company raised the objection that the rider of the motor bike did not possess the valid and effective driving license, they have not proved the same by leading evidence. Hence, the Tribunal has held that due to rash and negligent riding of the motor bike, the accident had occurred and the claimants are the dependents of the deceased and they are entitled to compensation.

With regard to quantum of compensation is concerned, though the claimants claimed that the deceased was earning more than a sum of Rs. 10,000/- p.m. as a gold smith, no document has been produced to substantiate the same. Taking into consideration the income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000/- p.m, since the claimants are four in number deducting 1/4th towards personal expenditure and considering the age of the deceased as 34 years at the time of death, applying the multiplier 16, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 8,64,000/- towards loss of dependency, Rs. 10,000/- towards consortium, Rs. 10,000/- towards love and affection, Rs. 5,000/- towards transportation of dead body, Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 50,000/- towards medical bills. In all, a sum of Rs. 9,74,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. was awarded. The claimants being not satisfied with the compensation have filed this appeal.

Sri Sachin M Mahajan, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants contended that the deceased was a gold smith by profession. Though the claimants have not produced any documents to substantiate the same, Ex.P102 produced by the claimants clearly discloses that the deceased was a life member to the Karnataka Board Silver Worker Federation. His profession cannot be disputed. The income of Rs. 6,000/- p.m. taken by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Even an agricultural labourer working as a coolie would earn a sum of Rs. 6,500/- p.m. in the year 2011-12. Further, the compensation awarded towards loss of consortium and love and affection is on the lower side. At the young age of 30 years, the 1st appellant/wife of the deceased has lost her husband and two children have lost love and affection of their father and further the mother aged about 55 years has lost her son at the end of her life. Hence, the appellants have sought for enhancement of compensation.

On the other hand, Sri S.S. Aspalli, learned Advocate appearing for the 2nd respondent - Insurance Company argued in support of the judgment and award and contended that no document has been produced to establish that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 10,000/- p.m. In the absence of any documents, the income of Rs. 6,000/- p.m. taken by the Tribunal is in accordance with law. Further, in the absence of any documentary evidence, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal cannot be enhanced. The Tribunal taking into consideration the entire facts has awarded a just and fair compensation. Hence, learned Advocate sought for dismissal of the appeal.

I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned Advocates appearing for the parties and perused judgment and award, oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties.

The records clearly disclose that due to rash and negligent riding of the motor bike, the deceased died in the road traffic accident that occurred on 25.10.2011. He died during the course of treatment on 12.11.2011. The actionable negligence on the part of the rider is not disputed by the respondents. The dispute to be decided is only with regard to quantum of compensation. The main contention of the appellants is that the income of Rs. 6,000/- p.m. taken by the Tribunal is on the lower side. The deceased was a gold smith by profession. In proof of the same, the claimants have produced a document to show that the deceased was a life member to the Karnataka Board Silver Worker Federation. Hence, the income of Rs. 6,000/- p.m. taken by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Except showing the deceased as life member to the Karnataka Board Silver Worker Federation, no document has been produced. It does not mean that he was not earning any income. The deceased cannot be treated as an agricultural worker. A sum of Rs. 4,500/- p.m. taken by the Tribunal towards income of the deceased is on the lower side. Even the income of an agricultural coolie would be Rs. 6,500/- p.m. in the year 2011-12. Further, the deceased had left behind him the aged mother, wife and two minor children. Hence, I am of the opinion that taking into consideration the income of the deceased as Rs. 6,500/- p.m., deducting 1/4th towards his personal expenditure since the claimants are four in number, applying the multiplier 16, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 9,36,000/- towards loss of dependency. The deceased had left behind the wife aged about 30 years and two minor children, who are aged about four years and six years respectively. Hence, the wife of the deceased is entitled to a sum of Rs. 75,000/- towards loss of consortium and two minor children have lost love and affection of their father and are entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards love and affection. Further a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards medical expenditure, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards transportation of dead body and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards funeral expenses. In all, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 11,96,000/- as against a sum of Rs. 9,74,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, the claimants are entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs. 2,22,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

Appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 26.9.2012 passed in MVC No. 198/2012 on the file of the Fast Track Court at Basavakalyan, Bidar, is modified. The claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs. 2,22,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. However, the claimants are not entitled to interest for 381 days, since there was delay of 381 days in filing the appeal.