The Manager Reliance General Ins. Co. Ltd. vs Parvathamma and Others

N.K. Patil, J.—1. This appeal by the insurer is arising out of the impugned judgment and award dated 15th September 2015 passed in MVC No. 299/2014 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, C.J.M. and MACT-III, Chitradurga (hereinafter referred to as ''Tribunal'' for short).

By its judgment and award, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 17,71,200/- with interest at 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization as against the claim made by the claimant, on account of the death of Sri. Mahesha in the road traffic accident. The quantum of compensation awarded is disproportionate to the income of the deceased and is liable to be modified. Therefore, the appellant-insurer felt necessitated to present this appeal.

In brief, the facts of the case are:

"That the 1st respondent is wife and 2nd and 3rd respondents are minor children and 4th and 5th respondents are parents of the deceased Mahesh and they had filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation on account of the death of the deceased in the road traffic accident, contending that, the deceased along with others was going towards Mylar temple from Madakasira in Andrapradesh by hiring a TATA Ace vehicle on 8.2.2014 and when they reached food factory, near Kolahal N.H-4 at Bharanasagara, on 9.1.2014 at about 1.30. am, the vehicle got punctured and due to that the driver stopped the same at the extreme left side of footpath and he was changing the punctured tire with the help of deceased and others. At that point of time the driver of lorry bearing Reg. No. TN-52-B-1055, came from Chitradurga side in a rash and negligent manner, with high speed, and dashed against all of them, due to which, the deceased and others sustained grievous injuries. Immediately the deceased and others were shifted to C.G. Hospital, at Davanagere and thereafter shifted to S.S. Hospital and then to Sapthagiri hospital, Bangalore for higher treatment. But in spite of best treatment, the deceased succumbed to injuries on 9.02.2014 at about 6.45 p.m. The claimants have spent huge amount towards medical treatment and conveyance and incidental expenses and funeral and obsequies ceremony. Further, case of the claimants is that the deceased was hale and healthy prior to the accident and age about 30 years and doing milk vending and agriculture, arecanut business and was earning Rs. 15,000/- p.m. and he was the only earning member in the family. The case of the respondents is that they are dependents on the deceased. He was looking after the welfare of the family and due to his untimely death, they suffered socially and economically and sudden death of the deceased has caused much hardship to his family members. Taking all these aspects, the claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of MV Act before the Tribunal claiming compensation against the insurer and owner of opposite vehicle. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and other material on record awarded a sum of Rs. 17,71,200/- as compensation under different heads with interest at 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition till its realisation. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant-insurer felt necessitated to present this appeal on the ground that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is disproportionate to the income of the deceased and is liable to be modified."

Sri. Anup Seetharama Rao for Sri. B.C. Seetharama Rao learned counsel appearing for the insurer submitted that Tribunal has erred in taking the income of deceased at Rs. 9,000/- p.m. which is on the higher side and disproportionate to the income of the deceased. The respondents had not produced any credible documents to show the income of the deceased. Therefore the income of the deceased may be reassessed between Rs. 7,500/- and Rs. 8,000/-. Further he submitted that Tribunal has erred in deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses instead of 1/3th for calculation of loss of dependency. Tribunal also erred in awarding compensation towards love and affection and loss of estate and what is warded is on higher side. Hence the judgment and award of the Tribunal is required to be modified by reducing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

Per contra, Sri. K.R. Ramesh for Y.H. Raghunath, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 inter-alia contended and substantiated that, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and is passed after considering the oral and documentary evidence and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of dependency, loss of consortium, medical expenses, loss of love and affection and loss of estate and Transportation and funeral expenses is just and proper. To substantiate his submission he placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court reported in , (2015) 3 Supreme Court cases 590 in Neeta W/o Kallappa Kadolkar and others v. Divisional Manger, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Kolhapur and as per the ratio of the said judgment, interference by this Court is not called for.

After careful consideration of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and after perusal of the Judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, what emerges is that, occurrence of accident and the resultant death of the deceased are not in dispute. The claimants are none other than wife, two minor children and parents of the deceased. Further it emerges that, the deceased was an agriculturist and mason, earning Rs. 15,000/- p.m. He was the only earning member in the family and looking after the welfare of the family. The accident occurred in the year 2014. The offending vehicle was insured with the insurer, which is not in dispute. The income assessed by the Tribunal is just and proper and the Tribunal has rightly assessed Rs. 9,000/- p.m and out of it deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased and rightly applied multiplier of ''16'' taking the age of the deceased between 31-35 years. Hence, We do not find any error in assessing the income of the deceased. Further, after careful consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs. 12,96,000/- towards loss of dependency, Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 35,200/- towards medical, conveyance, Nourishment, Food and Attendant charges, Rs. 2,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs. 40,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses considering the facts and circumstance of the case. Therefore interference by this Court is not called for. The reasoning given by the Tribunal in its judgment at para Nos. 28 and 29 is well founded and therefore looking at all these aspects, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has rightly awarded a sum of Rs. 17,71,200/- with 7.5% interest from the date of petition till the date of realization for the death of deceased in the road traffic accident. The same is just and reasonable and interference by this Court is not called for nor the insurer has made out any good ground calling interference.

Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant-Insurer are dismissed as devoid of merits.

The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Jurisdictional Tribunal, forthwith.