AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.N. Venugopal Gowda, J.—Smt. Hanumakka, having succumbed to injuries sustained in a road traffic accident, her son, aged about 40 years, filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ''the Act''). The petition was allowed and an award for Rs. 2,47,000/- with interest at 6% was passed. The claimant and the insurance company have filed these appeals.
Sri M.K. Soudagar, learned advocate for the insurance company, contended that the Tribunal has erred in not noticing the fact that the claimant was not a dependent on the income of the deceased and at best, he is only entitled to a nominal sum as compensation towards the loss to the estate and not under the head of loss of dependency. In support of the contention, reliance was placed on the decision in Smt. Manjuri Bera Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Another, (2007) 2 ACC 365 : (2007) ACJ 1279 : AIR 2007 SC 1474 : (2007) 5 JT 78 : (2007) 146 PLR 611 : (2007) 5 SCALE 193 : (2007) 10 SCC 643 : (2007) 4 SCR 590 and A. Manavalagan Vs. A. Krishnamurthy and Others, (2005) 1 ACC 304 : (2005) ACJ 992 : (2004) ILR (Kar) 3268 : (2004) 5 KarLJ 321 .
On the other hand, Sri Y. Lakshmikant Reddy, learned counsel for the claimant, seeks to support the impugned judgment and award, as fully justified and not calling for interference. Learned counsel submitted that there being no just and reasonable compensation awarded, modification by way of an enhancement is called for.
There is no dispute that claimant was aged about 41 years at the time of occurrence of the accident and the deceased was aged 60 years. Both were coolies. Thus, the claimant is not a dependent on his deceased mother, for his livelihood. In this scenario, it is useful to notice the relevant portions of the judgment in MANAVALGAN''S case and MANJURI''s case.
In MANAVALAGAN''s case, the principles have been summarized thus:
"19. We may summarize the principles enunciated, thus:
(i) xxx
(ii) xxx
(iii) Where the claim by the legal representatives of the deceased who were not dependants of the deceased, then the basis for award of compensation is the loss to the estate, that is the loss of savings by the deceased.
A conventional sum for loss of expectation of life, is added.
(iv) The procedure for determination of loss to estate is broadly the same as the procedure for determination of the loss of dependency. Both involve ascertaining the multiplicand and capitalizing it by multiplying it by an appropriate multiplier. But, the significant difference is in the figure arrived at as multiplicand in cases where the claimants who are dependants claim loss of dependency, and in cases where the claimants who are not dependents claim loss to estate. The annual contribution to the family constitutes the multiplicand in the case of loss of dependency, whereas the annual savings of the deceased becomes the multiplicand in the case of loss to estate. The method of selection of multiplier is however the same in both cases."
In MANJURI''s case, it has been held as follows:-
"16. Judged in that background where a legal representative who is not dependant files an application for compensation, the quantum cannot be less than the liability referable to Section 140 of the Act. Therefore, even if there is no loss of dependency the claimant if he or she is a legal representative will be entitled to compensation, the quantum of which shall be not less than the liability flowing from Section 140 of the Act. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There will be no order as to costs. We record our appreciation for the able assistance rendered by Shri Jayant Bhushan, the learned Amicus Curiae."
In the instant case, the Tribunal has proceeded as if the claimant is dependent on the income of the deceased and has awarded compensation of Rs. 2,16,000/- under the head loss of dependency. The claimant, being a major and not being a dependent son, is only entitled to be awarded compensation under the head of loss to estate, in addition to the sum under the conventional heads. The Tribunal has committed error in quantifying the loss and passing the impugned judgment and award.
Having perused the record of the case and the income of the deceased, who was aged about 60 years and she being a coolie, the compensation awarded being excessive, is modified as follows:
In the result, MFA No. 21366/2011 is allowed in part and the impugned judgment and award are modified, entitling the claimant to compensation of Rs. 1,54,750/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit. Consequently, MFA No. 20220/2011 filed by the claimant seeking enhancement being devoid of merit, is dismissed.
The amount in deposit, to the extent of the said liability of the insurance company be transferred to the MACT.
Draw modified award accordingly.