AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. Justice B. Sreenivase Gowda
This appeal is by the insurer of offending vehicle challenging quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal as excessive. Heard. The appeal is admitted and with the consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.
For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Tribunal.
As there is no dispute regarding death of the deceased Ibrahim Killedar in a road traffic accident occurred on 26-12 08 near Mayur Resort, near the land of Shinde due to rash and negligent driving of Tata Ace bearing registration No. KA-25/C-410 by its driver and its liability to pay compensation to the claimant, only point that remains for my consideration in the appeal is :
Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for enhancement ?
After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the award of the Tribunal, I am of the view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not just and reasonable and I reassess and award the following compensation.
Deceased Ibrahim Killedar was aged about 21 years at the time of his death in the accident as evident from post mortem report Ex. P. 11. The claimant who is his mother in support of her contention that her deceased son after completing ITI training was working as a Mechanic in Toyota Shod ha. Pvt. Ltd. At Hubli and was getting salary of Rs. 10,000/- examined herself as P.W.1 and has produced Exs. 18 to 20 service records issued by the Toyota Co. But she did not examine the employer of the deceased.
Learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Co. submits, deceased was a bachelor and service certificates produced by the claimant show he was working in Toyota Co. six months prior to the accident and no documents are produced to show that he was working at the time of his death and how much salary he was getting. He further contends, in case of death of a bachelor, Tribunal is not justified in deducting 1/3rd of his income towards personal expenses and taking 2/3rd as his contribution to the family and applying multiplier of 18'' on the basis of the age of the deceased instead of applying the multiplier of 13 on the basis of the age of the younger parent i.e. the mother.
Whereas, learned Counsel appearing for the claimant contends claimant is the mother of the deceased. She was entirely depending upon the income of her deceased son. Deceased passed ITI with merit and thereafter, he had done some courses and he was working in Toyota and earning Rs. 10,000/-. As the claimant had no assistance of anybody, she could not secure all documents and submit before the Tribunal and he submits, income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 5,000/- per month is on the lower side and he requests compensation may be reassessed and just and reasonable compensation may be awarded.
It is settled law, even in the absence of appeal by the claimant, Courts are required to award just and reasonable, compensation. Considering Tribunal has not awarded just and reasonable compensation, I reassess the same and award the following compensation.
Ex. P. 16 - marks card, shows the deceased had secured 525 marks out of 700 as against minimum marks of 350 in ITI and he was a merit student. Ex. P. 22 is a certificate issued by his employer stating he is a skilled worker. Exs. P. 18 to 20 show he was working in Toyoto Co. After the death of deceased, claimant who is his mother residing in a village cannot be expected to run from pillar to post and collect the testimonials and documents of her son regarding his employment and salary. Whatever was available at home, she had produced, the same before the Tribunal. Considering deceased was a merit student working in Toyota Co. after completing ITI and thereafter he had done some course and there was a certificate issued by his employer stating that he was a skilled worker, his income could be easily assessed at Rs. 7,000/- per month as against Rs. 5,000/ assessed by the Tribunal. The deceased was a bachelor and 50% of his income has to be deducted towards his personal expenses as against 1/3rd deducted by the Tribunal. Multiplier of ''13'' has to be applied on the basis of the age of the mother instead of ''18'' applied by the Tribunal on the basis of the age of the deceased. Thus loss of dependency works out to Rs. 5.46,000/-(Rs. 7,000/- x1/2 x 12 x 13) and it is awarded as against Rs. 7,20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
Rs. 10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of estate and Rs. 10,000/ awarded towards funeral expenses and transportation of dead body are just and proper and there is no scope for enhancement.
Deceased sustained major injuries on 26-12-08 and he survived for two days and medical bills are produced for Rs. 15,000/- to show the said amount was spent towards his treatment. Therefore, I award Rs. 15,000/- towards medical expenses.
Thus the claimant is entitled for the following compensation :
Loss of dependency
Rs.5,46,000/-
Loss of estate
Rs. 10,000/-
Transportation of dead body and funeral expenses
Rs. 10,000/-
4.''Medical expenses
Rs. 15,000/-
Rs.5,81,000/
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent stated herein above. The claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 5,81,000/- as against Rs. 7,40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reduced by Rs. 1,59,000/-.
The appellant Insurance Co. after deducting amount if any already deposited is directed to deposit the balance compensation amount with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation and out of the same Rs. 5,00,000/- is ordered to be invested in FD in the name of the claimant -mother, in any nationalised or scheduled Bank for a period of 12 years, with a right of option to her to renew the deposit from time to time and withdraw interest periodically and the remaining amount is ordered to be released in her favour.
Amount in deposit is ordered to be transferred to the Tribunal for disbursement as above. If the amount deposited is found to be in excess than what is awarded in this appeal, the balance amount is directed to be refunded to the appellant - Insurance Co. No order as to costs.