Sushumma Jayakumar Chandraddi vs V. Link Taxies Pvt. Ltd.

K.L. Manjunath, J.—Though the matter is listed for orders, these two matters are taken for final disposal with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for both the parties.

MFA No. 4288/2013 is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation. MFA No. 3238/2013 is filed by the insurance company, challenging the liability saddled on it and so also the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, these two matters are heard together.

A claim petition was lodged by the widow, minor child and the mother of one by name Jaya Kumar Chandraddi, before the MACT, Bangalore in MVC No. 3837/2011, claiming compensation on account of death of Jayakumar in a road traffic accident occurred on 10.06.2011 at about 10.30 p.m., when he was riding his scooter bearing No. KA-50-E-6725, on Allalasandra Main Road in front of Manipal University College, Yelahanka on account of the rash and negligent driving of the car bearing registration No. KA-53-6459, insured by the appellant-insurance company. A case was registered against the car driver before the Yelahanka Traffic Police in Crime No. 90/2011, for offences punishable under Section- 279, 338, 304(A) of I.P.C.

The deceased was working with M/s. G.E. Group of Company, since 11.03.2002. He had done his Masters in Software Engineering in distinction. In addition to that, he had possessed various diploma course and was a brilliant Software Engineering and was getting a salary of Rs. 19,68,000/- per annum. He was aged about 35 years.

According to the claimants, the deceased was proceeding on his Honda Activa Scooter on the left side of the road. The car which was coming from the opposite direction dashed against the deceased who was riding his Honda active taking the car to the extreme right side. The owner and the driver of the car did not contest the matter.

The appellant-insurance company contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased and the driver of the car was nowhere responsible for the cause of the accident. In order to prove their respective contentions, on behalf of me claimants two witnesses were examined PW-1, the widow of the deceased. PW-2 is employee of M/s. GE, who was examined to show the salary of the deceased. The claimants relied upon Exhibits-P1 to P47. On behalf of the insurance company no evidence was let-in.

The Tribunal considering the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 and charge-sheet filed against the driver of the car and more particularly relying upon the sketch marked as Exhibit-P4 came to the conclusion that the driver of the car took his vehicle to extreme right side and dashed against the opposite side scooter, which was driven by the deceased on the left side of the road. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Car. The Tribunal on considering Exhibit-P16 and P17 and considering the background of the deceased awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,82,33,145/- by applying the multiplier of ''15'' and also awarded Rs. 50,000/- under the conventional heads. Thus in all, Rs. 1,82,83,145/- is awarded as compensation. Being not satisfied with the same, the claimants have filed an appeal for enhancement. The insurance company has filed an appeal questioning the liability and so also the quantum.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

According to the learned counsel Shri O. Mahesh appearing for the insurance company, the Tribunal has committed an error in holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Car. He further contends that Exhibit-P4, the sketch has not been provided by the claimant. According to the appellant-insurance company, the accident occurred since the deceased was overtaking another two-wheeler which was proceeding ahead of him and dashed against the Car. Therefore, the appeal filed by the insurance company has to be allowed. He further contends that 50% of the income added towards future prospects has to be deducted since the Hon''ble Supreme Court has referred the matter to a larger bench in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pushpa and Others.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimants submits that the Tribunal has committed an error in not considering the income of the deceased properly and not applying the appropriate multiplier according to the age of the deceased. He further contends that the compensation awarded under the Conventional Heads is on lower side. In the circumstances, he requests the court to allow the appeal filed by the claimants.

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the following two points arise for consideration in these appeals:

i. Whether the finding of the Tribunal on the question of negligence requires to be interfered with?

ii. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires to be enhanced?

So far as the first point is concerned, the owner and the driver of the car are not disputing the accident. A charge-sheet is filed against the driver of the car. Exhibit-P4 is the sketch prepared by the police during the course of the investigation. On perusal of the sketch, it is clear to us that the driver of the car had come to the extreme right side by-crossing the road median and dashed against the scooter which was proceeding on the left side. More over, the width of the road was 100 feet, the driver of the car has not explained what made him to take the vehicle to the extreme right side when the road width is 100 feet. In the absence of any material placed by the appellant-insurance company, it is difficult for any court to hold that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased. Accordingly, point No. 1 is answered against the appellant-insurance company.

So far as point No. 2 is concerned, admittedly the deceased was working in the same company since the year 2002. He has worked for more than nine years, which is a multi-national reputed company. Exhibits-P16 and P17 discloses that he was getting a gross salary of Rs. 1,58,000/- per month and after deducting 30% towards professional tax and income tax, the net income has to be assessed at Rs. 1,10,600/- per month. In addition to that considering his age, we have to add 50% of his income towards future prospects which works out to Rs. 55,300/-. Then the, total income would be Rs. 1,65,900/-, out of which we have to deduct 1/3rd of his income towards personal expenses of the deceased since he was maintaining young wife, minor daughter and aged mother. Then the notional income per month has to be considered as Rs. 1,10,600/-. Admittedly, he had not completed 35 years as on the date of the accident. Therefore, the appropriate multiplier to be applied is ''16''. Hence, the loss of dependency works out as follows:

Rs. 1,10,600 x 12 x 16 = Rs. 2,12,35,200/-.

In addition to that, the claimants are entitled for Rs. 2,00,000/- under the conventional head viz., loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, loss of estate, transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. Thus, in all the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 2,14,35,200/- and the same is rounded of to Rs. 2,14,35,000/-, along with interest at 6% as ordered by the Tribunal.

In the result, the appeal filed by the insurance company in MFA No. 3238/2013 is dismissed. MFA 4288/2013 filed by the claimants is allowed in part. The amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified holding that the appellant claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 2,14,35,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. The enhanced compensation shall be apportioned in the same ratio as apportioned by the Tribunal.