AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil, J.—These two appeals respectively by the Insurer and the claimants are directed against the same common judgment and award dated 26th June 2012, passed in MVC No. 6839/2010, by the Member, Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, (for short, ''Tribunal''), awarding compensation of Rs. 23,57,000/- with 6% interest per annum, on account of the death of the deceased late Rathansi M. Patel, in the road traffic accident. While the Insurer has filed the appeal for reduction of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 23,57,000/- with 6% interest per annum, awarded in favour of the claimants is on the higher side; the claimants have filed the appeal seeking enhancement of compensation on the ground that the compensation of Rs. 23,57,000/- awarded by Tribunal is inadequate and needs to be enhanced.
The facts in brief are that, the claimants are the wife, children and father of the deceased Rathansi M. Patel. They filed the claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation of Rs. 51.00 lakhs, contending that, at about 7:45 P.M., on 30-07-2010, when the deceased along with another was standing on the left side of NH4, Bangalore Tumkur Road in front of Sateesh Petrol Bunk to cross the road, at that time, a Lorry bearing Registration No. KA-52/3208, came on the wrong side, being driven by the driver of the said Lorry in a rash and negligent manner dashed against them. As a result of the same, they suffered grievous injuries, but unfortunately, the deceased Rathansi M. Patel succumbed to the injuries on the spot.
It is the case of the claimants that, the deceased Rathansi M. Patel was aged about 45 years and owning a saw mill by name Bhavani Saw Mill apart from doing agriculture work and earning a sum of Rs. 45,000/- per month and was hale and healthy prior to the accident and the family was entirely dependent on the said income. On account of the untimely and unnatural death of the deceased, the first claimant/wife has lost the life partner, second and third claimants/children have lost the love and affection, inspiration and guidance, apart from social, financial and moral support and the fourth claimant/father has lost the financial and social security and therefore, they have to be compensated reasonably.
On account of the death of the deceased in the road traffic accident, the claimants filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of a sum of Rs. 51,00,000/- against the owner and Insurer of the offending vehicle. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 26th June, 2012. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, awarding a sum of Rs. 23,40,000/- under different heads, with 6% interest per annum, from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the Insurer is in appeal before this Court, seeking reduction of compensation and the claimants also are in appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
We have heard Shri. S.V. Hegde Mulkhand, learned counsel appearing for Insurer and Shri. C.M. Kempegowda, learned counsel appearing for claimants, gone through the grounds urged in the memorandum of both the appeals carefully and perused the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal including the original records placed before us.
Shri. S.V. Hegde Mulkhand, learned counsel appearing for Insurer vehemently submits that the Tribunal has committed a grave error and material irregularity, resulting in serious miscarriage of justice, inasmuch as the Tribunal, without appreciating the fact that the saw mill stated to have been run by the deceased would continue to yield profit even in the absence of the deceased, has assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 20,000/-. He submits that the claimants have stated that the deceased was running a sawmill and also doing agricultural work by owning agricultural land and earning more than Rs. 45,000/- per month. In support of the same, the claimants have produced income tax returns for the relevant years, showing the annual gross income. But, it should be seen that the income from the saw mill and interest on investments continue to come even in the absence of the deceased. Therefore, he submitted that the Tribunal has not looked into all these aspects of the matter and assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 20,000/- per month, which is liable to be re-assessed by taking the income between Rs. 18,000/- and Rs. 19,000/-.
Further he vehemently submitted that the Tribunal also grossly erred in not deducting income tax and professional tax from the said income but however, submitted that the Tribunal is justified in deducting 1/4th towards the personal expenses of the deceased. Therefore, he submits that the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal is liable to be modified, by considerably reducing the total compensation.
As against this, Shri. C.M. Kempegowda, learned counsel appearing for claimants submits that the Tribunal, after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, has awarded compensation under various heads and in fact, the monthly income of Rs. 20,000/- assessed by Tribunal is on the lower side as he was running a saw mill and to that effect, the claimants have also produced the income tax returns at Ex. P10 and therefore, the Tribunal ought to assessed the income of the deceased at least between Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 30,000/- per month and out of the said sum, professional tax and 10% income tax could have been deducted and adopting multiplier of ''13'', after deducting 1/4th towards the personal expenses of the deceased, awarded reasonable compensation. Further, he vehemently submitted that the claimants are the wife, one major son, one minor son and the father of the deceased and the entire family was dependent on the income of the deceased. Therefore, he submitted that reasonable compensation be awarded towards loss of dependency.
Further, he vehemently submitted that the Tribunal also grossly erred in awarding only a sum of Rs. 17,000/- towards conventional heads. The same is on the lower side and the claimants are entitled to more than Rs. 45,000/- towards conventional heads as per the ratio of law laid down in the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, .
He further submitted that the Tribunal also erred in awarding interest at only 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, when in fact, the accident has occurred during 2010 and as per the decision of the Apex Court and this Court, in catena of decisions, the claimants are entitled to at least 8% to 9% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal is liable to be modified, by enhancing reasonable compensation both under loss of dependency and also conventional heads as also the rate of interest.
After hearing the rival contentions of the parties, after perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal and after re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, the points that arise for our consideration in these two appeals are:
I] Whether the Insurer has made out a case for reduction of compensation?
II] Whether the claimants have made out a case for modifying the rate of interest from 6% to 8%?
Re-Point I: The undisputed facts of the case are, the occurrence of accident and the resultant death of the deceased Rathansi M. Patel in the road traffic accident. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was running a saw mill and to that effect, the claimants have produced the Income Tax Returns at Ex. P10. In addition to the same, the claimants have also produced village patta No. 8-A (Land''s ledger) to show that the deceased was owning agricultural fields too at Gujarat. From a perusal of the said returns filed for various years, it can be seen that the deceased has filed the returns in the name of the Saw mill and not in individual capacity. Further, it can be seen that the gross annual income indicated is the total income derived from all sources. The income from the saw mill and also agricultural land continues to enure to the benefit of the family of the deceased by monitoring and supervising the same even in the absence of the deceased. The said assets continue to exist to the family and the family can run the same in the absence of the deceased also. However, the monthly income of Rs. 20,000/- assessed by Tribunal appears to be a bit on the higher side. Therefore, having regard to the age, avocation and the year of accident, coupled with the documentary evidence, we re-assess the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 18,500/- as against Rs. 20,000/- assessed by Tribunal, to meet the ends of justice and per annum, the said monthly income works out to Rs. 2,22,000/-. From the said sum, if income tax at the rate of 10% (i.e. Rs. 7,200/-) on Rs. 72,000/- and Rs. 2,400/- towards professional tax is deducted, the net income comes to Rs. 2,12,400/- per annum. Having regard to the number of dependents being four, we deduct 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased, as rightly done by the Tribunal. Accordingly, If 1/4th (i.e. Rs. 53,100/-) is deducted from Rs. 2,12,400/- towards his personal expenses, the net income would be Rs. 1,59,300/- per annum. It is stated by the claimants that the deceased was aged about 45 years. But, the Tribunal after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, has held that the deceased was aged about 48 years as on the date of accident. The same is accepted and we adopt the same. Therefore, for the said age, the proper multiplier applicable is ''13'' as per the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, as rightly adopted by Tribunal. Thus, the compensation towards loss of dependency would work out to Rs. 20,70,900/- (i.e. Rs. 1,59,300/- x ''13'') as against Rs. 23,40,000/- awarded by Tribunal.
Further, the Tribunal has erred in awarding only a sum of Rs. 17,000/- towards conventional heads. The same is on the higher side. As per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma''s case (supra), we award a sum of Rs. 45,000/- towards conventional heads, such as loss of estate, loss of consortium, loss of love and affection and transportation and funeral expenses as against Rs. 17,000/- awarded by Tribunal.'' Thus, the total compensation payable to claimants works out to Rs. 21,15,900/- as against Rs. 23,57,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. There would be reduction of compensation by a sum of Rs. 2,41,100/-. Re-Point II: Further, so far as the rate of interest awarded by Tribunal at 6% p.a. is concerned, it can be seen the accident is of the year 2010. The claimants are none other than the wife, two children and aged father of deceased. The Hon''ble Apex Court and this Court have been consistently awarding the reasonable rate of interest, having regard to the year of accident and also considering the fact the rate of interest the claimants would get, if the amount is deposited in the Nationalized or Scheduled Banks. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for claimants, in view of the ratio of law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court and this Court in catena of decisions, we hereby modify the rate of interest from 6% p.a. awarded by Tribunal to 8% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization on the entire compensation.
In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the appeal filed by the Insurer is allowed in part and the appeal filed by the claimants is dismissed. The impugned common judgment and award dated 26th June 2012, passed in MVC No. 6839/2010, by the Member, Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, is hereby modified, reducing the total compensation from Rs. 23,57,000/- awarded by Tribunal, to Rs. 21,15,900/- (reduction being Rs. 2,41,100/-), with interest at 8% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization. The Insurer is directed to deposit the remaining compensation, after deducting the amount if any deposited by it, with interest thereon at 8% per annum on the total compensation awarded by this Court, within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. The apportionment of compensation and the manner of disbursement ordered by Tribunal would get proportionately reduced to the extent of reduction of compensation made by this Court.
The statutory amount in deposit by the Insurer in M.F.A. No. 10214/2012 is directed to be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal, forthwith.
Office to draw award, accordingly.