Sujata and Others vs The Divisional Manager, NWKRTC and Others

S. Sujatha, J.—The insurance company as well as the claimants are before this Court challenging the judgment and award passed by the MACT, Belgaum in MVC No. 1607/2011.

The facts in brief are:

That on 22.05.2011 at about 13.00 hours, the deceased Bhimappa Ishwar Kamble was proceeding on extremely left side of the road, when he reached near the spot of the accident i.e., in front of Mugalkhod Bus stop, at that time, the driver of the offending vehicle-bus bearing registration No. KA-23/F-549 came from Kaman gate of Mugalkhod Bus stand in a rash and negligent manner with a high speed, collided to the deceased Bhimappa and thereby caused the accident. Due to the heavy impact, the deceased sustained the fatal injuries and died on the spot and in the said accident, claimant No. 1 has also sustained grievous injuries.

Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company contended that the Tribunal has awarded excessive compensation under the conventional heads to the extent of Rs. 1,40,000/- without considering the facts and circumstances of the case which do not require such exorbitant compensation that too in the absence of any material evidence placed on record by the claimants. It is also contended that interest at 8% p.a. is on the higher side.

Learned counsel appearing for the claimants on the other hand seeks for enhancement of compensation on the ground that no future prospects is awarded to the deceased as per as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in ''Reshma Kumari and others v. Modanmohan and another'' and in the case of ''Munna Lal Jain and Another Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and Others'' passed in ''Civil Appeal No. 4497 of 2015''. It is also contended by the learned counsel appearing for the claimants that the compensation awarded under the different conventional heads is also on the lower side and same requires to be enhanced by considering the facts and circumstances that the claimants are the widow aged about 30 years at the time of the accident, the children being aged about 7 years, 5 years and 3 years and the aged parents. The Tribunal has awarded a Minimal compensation which necessarily requires interference by this Court.

After considering the rival submissions of the parties, it is noticed that the deceased was working as a painter, he was aged about 40 years at the time of the accident. Even considering that in the absence of any adequate material produced by the claimants to prove the income of the deceased, applying the income consistently taken in similar cases before this Court and also in the Lok-Adalath, the income of the deceased may be safely determined at Rs. 6,000/- per month, which appears to be just and proper and same is adopted by the Tribunal to determine the monthly income of the deceased which cannot be found fault with. The submission made by the learned counsel for the claimants that no future prospects is awarded as per judgments the Apex Court appears to be not worthy of acceptance, in view of the specific finding given by the Tribunal that applying the principle of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case ''Santhosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd., and others'', the future prospects to the extent of 30% is awarded. Accordingly, the loss of dependency is determined by the Tribunal. In view of the said findings given by the Tribunal awarding compensation towards future prospects, the arguments addressed by the learned counsel appearing for the claimants is not worthy of acceptance and has to be rejected. So far as arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the insurer that the compensation awarded under the different conventional heads has to be reduced is also not worthy of acceptance, in view of the wife being 30 years and minor children are aged 7 years, 5 years and 3 years. Naturally these claimants have lost the sole earning member which definitely affects their future life. The untimely death of the deceased has turned down their future prospects in their life. In such circumstances, the compensation awarded towards loss of consortium and love and affection cannot be considered as exorbitant or excessive, the same is just and proper, does not call for any interference by this Court.

As regards the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the insurer regarding interest @ 8% p.a. awarded by the Tribunal, I do not see any merit in the argument addressed by the learned counsel in view of the value of the rupee having come down drastically, the claimants having lost their sole bread earner have to be compensated commensurate to their statutory rights. In such circumstances 8% interest awarded by the Tribunal would not be considered as exorbitant as contended by the learned counsel appearing for the insurer. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal does not call for any interference by this Court.

Consequently, both the appeals are rejected. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal concerned. The claimants are at liberty to withdraw the same as per the orders passed by the Tribunal keeping the minors share in the fixed deposit as directed by the Tribunal.