AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil, J.—Though these matters are posted for Orders, with the consent of learned Counsel appearing for both the parties the same are taken up for final disposal.
These two appeals are by the Insurer and the claimants being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award dated 11th December 2014 passed in M.V.C. No. 269/2013 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and Principal Senior Civil Judge and C.J.M., Ramanagara (hereinafter referred to as ''Tribunal'' for short). The Tribunal by its impugned Judgment and Award, awarded a sum of Rs. 18,81,315/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization on account of the death of the deceased late Andanaiah in a road traffic accident. The case of the appellant/Insurer is that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side and the same is liable to be reduced by modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. Whereas it is the case of the claimants that the quantum of compensation and the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and requires enhancement. Therefore, both felt necessitated to present these two appeals.
The brief facts of the case on hand are that, the claimant No. 1 is the wife, claimant No. 2 is the minor son and claimant No. 3 is the mother of the deceased Andanaiah and they have filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs. 50,00,000/- against the appellant and two others on account of untimely death of the deceased Andanaiah in the road traffic accident that occurred on 26.08.2013 at about 10.00 p.m. contending that when the deceased was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing Regn. No. KA-02/EN-8725 on Ramanagara - Kanakapura Road near Akkuru Village, at that time, the driver of the Car bearing Regn. No. KA-51/M-898 came behind the motorbike of the deceased in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorbike. Due to the impact, he fell down and sustained fatal injuries. Immediately he has been shifted to Government Hospital, Ramanagara and thereafter he was shifted to NIMHANS Hospital, Bangalore for further treatment but they could not save the deceased and deceased succumbed to the injuries on 27.08.2013.
Further, it is the case of the claimants that the deceased was the only bread earning member of the family and aged about 37 years, working as Reserve Patrolling Guard in a Private Limited Company, drawing gross salary of Rs. 20,000/- per month. Due to untimely death, the wife has lost her companion, minor son has lost love and affection, inspiration and guidance of his father and mother has suffered mental pain and agony. Taking all these aspects into consideration they have filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act against the respondents before the Tribunal.
The said matter had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal in turn after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 15,000/- per month deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses by applying the multiplier ''15'' has allowed the same by awarding a sum of Rs. 18,00,000/- towards loss of dependency and Rs. 80,000/- towards conventional heads and Rs. 1,315/- towards medical expenses with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. Being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the Insurer and the claimants both have presented these two appeals.
We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for both the parties.
It is the submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the Insurer Sri. R. Rajagopalan at the outset that, the Tribunal has committed an error in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 15,000/- per month which is contrary to the evidence on record. He seeks to point out and submit that Ex.P11 - Pay Slip, Ex.P13 - Salary Slip clearly establish that he was getting gross salary of Rs. 7,000/- and in the light of the judgment of Apex Court, another 50% is to be added towards future prospects of the deceased. Accordingly, the income of the deceased may be taken at Rs. 10,000/- and out of which 1/3rd may be deducted and by applying the multiplier ''15'' as the age of the deceased was 41 years and award reasonable compensation towards loss of dependency and conventional heads including the rate of interest in accordance with law. Therefore, he submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs. 18,81,315/- cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside, by reducing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
As against this, the learned Counsel appearing for the claimants Sri. S. Raju, inter-alia contended and sought to substantiate stating that the impugned Judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is after due consideration of oral and documentary evidence available on record and therefore, interference by this Court is not called for.
After careful consideration of the material available on record and after going through the documentary evidence at Ex.P11 and Ex.P13 and other material available on record, learned Counsel appearing for both the parties fairly submitted that the income of the deceased may be re-assessed at Rs. 7,000/- per month and another 50% may be added towards future prospects of the deceased in the light of the Judgment of Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, . The claimants are none other than wife, minor son and mother - senior citizen aged about 65 years. Further, 1/3rd may be deducted towards personal expenses as the claimants are three in number and applying the multiplier of ''15'', taking the age of the deceased as 37 years, reasonable compensation may be awarded towards loss of dependency. Further, he seeks to point out and submit that the Tribunal has erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, medical expenses, transportation and funeral expenses and what is awarded is inadequate and by following the judgment of Apex Court and this Court in host of judgments and also after re-appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, reasonable compensation may be awarded under the conventional heads and also medical expenses.
Further, he seeks to point out that the accident was occurred on 26.08.2013. But, the Tribunal has committed error in awarding only 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till realization. It is a well settled law of Apex Court and this Court in host of judgments, the rate of interest is to be awarded atleast at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.
After careful consideration of the submission of the learned Counsel appearing for both the parties and also after perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, what emerges is that the occurrence of the accident and the resultant death of the deceased in the road traffic accident that occurred on 26.08.2013 are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was aged about 37 years, working as Reserve Patrolling Guard and the claimants are none other than wife, minor son and mother - senior citizen of the deceased. The deceased was the only bread earning member of the family and in the light of the submission of the learned Counsel appearing for both the parties, we safely re-assess the income of the deceased at Rs. 7,000/- p.m. and another 50% is added towards future prospects of the deceased in the light of the Judgment of Apex Court in Sarla Verma''s case and total income can be re-assessed at Rs. 10,500/- per month, to meet the ends of justice. Out of which if 1/3rd is deducted towards personal expenses i.e. Rs. 3,500/- p.m., the net income works out to Rs. 7,000/- per month. The deceased was aged about 37 years at the time of accident the multiplier applicable is ''15''. Accordingly, we re-determine the compensation towards loss of dependency at Rs. 12,60,000/- (Rs. 7,000/-x12x15).
As rightly contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the claimants and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case that the wife has lost her companion at the young age of 30 years, minor son has lost love and affection, inspiration and guidance and mother aged about 65 years has suffered mental pain and agony and deprived to see the bright future of her son and also following the judgments of Apex Court and this Court in host of judgments, we deem it fit to award Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 1,50,000/- towards loss of love and affection at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- to each claimant, Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 25,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses and Rs. 1,500/- towards medical expenses as against Rs. 1,315/- awarded by the Tribunal. In all, the claimants/appellants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 15,61,500/- as against Rs. 18,81,315/- awarded by the Tribunal. There would be reduction of Rs. 3,19,815/-.
As rightly contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the claimants, the accident has occurred on 26.08.2013 and therefore, the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side and following the judgments of Apex Court and this Court in host of judgments and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it fit to award interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realization as against 6% p.a. awarded by the Tribunal.
For the foregoing reasons, the two appeals filed by the Insurer and the claimants are allowed in part. The impugned Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal dated 11th December 2014 passed in M.V.C. No. 269/2013 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and Principal Senior Civil Judge and C.J.M., Ramanagara is hereby modified reducing compensation by Rs. 3,19,815/-.
The Insurer herein is directed to deposit the compensation of a sum of Rs. 15,61,500/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realization, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment after deducting the amount deposited by it.
The apportionment ordered by the Tribunal gets proportionately reduced to the extent of compensation reduced by this Court.
Draw the award, accordingly.
The amount deposited by the Insurer before this Court shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal immediately.