AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G. Narendar, J. - Heard learned counsel or appellant and the respondent.
The parties are referred to by their nomenclature before the Tribunal.
The appellant before the Court is the insurer, being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree of the Tribunal rendered in M.V.C. No. 533/2006. The respondents are he claimants.
It is the case of the claimants that they are the father and minor brother [as on the date of the accident] of deceased Shantawwa, who was aged about 13 years.
It is contended that on the date of the accident, the deceased along with her mother and other relatives was travelling in the tempo and at that time, the offending vehicle being bus bearing Reg. No. KA 25/F-579 came from Dharwad at high speed and was being driven in rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and dashed against the tempo, resulting in a serious accident accounting for the death of 7 passengers including Shantwwva. The jurisdictional Police after investigation have filed a charge-sheet against the driver of the NWKRTC bus. The Tribunal after considering the evidence of the claimants and the material adduced by them has been placed to pass a Judgment awarding a sum of Rs. 2,00,000-00 as compensation with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.. The Tribunal was further pleased to apportion the award in favour of both the claimants and thereby a sum of Rs. 50,000-00 came to awarded in favour of the 2nd claimant and a sum of Rs. 1,50,000-00 to the 1st claimant, who is the father of the deceased.
The insurer neither entered the witness box nor got marked any documents in support of its case.
Learned counsel for the appellants would vehemently contend that the impugned Judgment and Decree is bad for having awarded a sum of Rs. 1,80,000-00 as compensation for loss of dependency and Rs. 20,00,000 towards the loss to estate, loss of love, affection and also for funeral expenses. He relies rely on the judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court, reported in AIR 2007 SC 324 rendered in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satender; wherein the Hon''ble Apex Court while dealing with the case of a child, who was aged about 9 years was pleased to hold that applying the principles of Jasbir Kaur''s , (AIR 1997 SC 3397) case, though there cannot be any award under the head of loss of dependency or future prospects, as it would be very difficult to assess the future prospects, in view of the uncertainties in regard to their academic pursuits, achievements in career and thereafter advancement in life are so many, nothing can be assumed with reasonable certainty, it awarded a sum of Rs. 1,80,000-00 along with interest at the rate of 7.5%. Relying on the same, he would submit that the impugned judgment and award is liable to be set aside.
Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants would rely on the judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Kishan Gopal and Anr. v. Lala and others dated 26-08-2013, reported in 2014(1) SCC 244. In the said judgment, the Hon''ble Apex Court in similar circumstances while computing appropriate compensation in respect a minor has been pleased to hold that the multiplier 15 has to be adopted by taking the age of the young parent and that the income was taken to Rs. 30,000-00 p.a. and accordingly arrived at the compensation to be paid as Rs. 4,50,000-00 and was also pleased to award Rs. 50,000-00 under the conventional heads towards loss of love, affection, funeral expenses and last rites.
In the light of the above judgment, this Court does not find that the award of compensation is illegal though the judgment would describe the compensation with the caption loss of dependency, it is a mere caption and as the same is neither excessive nor unreasonable and it being in consonance with the Apex Court''s decision in the case of new India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satender (AIR 2007 SC 324) stated supra, this Court does not find any justification to interfere with the impugned judgment and award. The purpose and objective of the Act, as interpreted by the Hon''ble Apex Court is to grant and award a just and reasonable compensation and in the opinion of this Court the sum awarded as compensation is just, fair and reasonable.
Furthermore, the sum awarded by the Apex Court in the case of Kishan Gopal, (2013 AAC 3005) is about Rs. 5,00,000-00; whereas the amount under the impugned judgment and decree is only Rs. 2,00,000-00. The award cannot be set aside merely on the basis of the caption used by the trial Court. Even otherwise, the Award of a sum of Rs. 1,80,000-00 is not excessive in the light of the ruling of the Apex Court. Accordingly, this Court does not find any good ground, which warrants interference with the impugned judgement and award. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
The amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal. The registry is directed to transmit the records to the Tribunal forthwith.