T.M.V. Nataraj vs R. Dhanabalan

B. Manohar, J.—Appellants are the claimants, being not satisfied with quantum of compensation awarded in the judgment and award dated 4-2-2012 made in MVC No. 6350/2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes at Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as �the Tribunal� for short) filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

The appellants had filed a claim petition contending that son of claimants 1 and 2 and brother of 3rd claimant one T.N.K. Surya Baby, while proceeding in this bicycle near Bricks Factory of Dasarlappalle village, K. Kotamandal, a lorry bearing Registration No. TN-28/AD-2445 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the bicycle in which, T.N.K. Surya Babu was proceeding. Due to the said impact, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Subsequently, he succumbed to injuries. The claimants claim that the deceased was aged about 15 years as on the date of accident, studying 8th Standard. At the young age, the parents have lost their loving son and hence they sought for compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/-.

In pursuance of the notice issued by the Tribunal, though the owner of the offending vehicle was served with notice, he remained unrepresented. The second respondent/insurance company filed written statement denying the entire averments made in the claim petition and also denied occurrence of the accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. The case pleaded by the second respondent is that due to the negligence on the part of the rider of the bicycle himself the accident had occurred. Further the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess the valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident. Hence, the insurance company is not liable to compensate the claimants.

On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the necessary issues. In order to prove their case, the first claimant got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents as Ex. P1 to Ex. P. 10(a). On behalf of the respondents, none of the witnesses were examined nor has any document been marked.

After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties and taking into consideration spot panchanama, IM V. report, copy of the complaint and charge-sheet, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry by its driver and the son of claimants 1 and 2 died in the said accident. Hence, the claimants are entitled for compensation.

With regard to quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal relying upon a judgment of the Hon�ble Supreme Court, reported in 2005 (1) TAC 609 (SC) in the case of Manju Devi and another v. Musafir Paswan and another awarded compensation in a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Since the driver of the offending lorry was possessing valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident, the liability was fastened on the insurance company to compensate the claimants. The claimants being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

Sri. K.N. Harish Babu, learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is contrary to law. At the time of death, the deceased was aged more than 15 years. As per the judgment of the Hon�ble Supreme Court, reported in 2013 ACJ 1253 : (AIR 2013 SC (Supp) 474) in the case of Reshma Kumari and others v. Madan Mohan and others, the Supreme Court has clearly held that in death case, where the age of the deceased is 15 years and above, the Claims Tribunal shall select the multiplier as indicated in Column No. 4 of the Table prepared in the case of Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 : (AIR 2009 SC 3104). In the instant case, the deceased was aged more than 15 years. Hence, the multiplier has to be adopted as per the Sarla Verma case. Hence sought for setting aside the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal by allowing this appeal.

On the other hand, Sri. Ravish Benni, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/insurance company argued in support of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and contended that the deceased was a non-earning member of tire family. Taking the notional income of Rs. 15,000/- and applying the appropriate multiplier of 15, the Tribunal has awarded just compensation. Hence sought for dismissal of the appeal.

I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award, oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties the only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal is in accordance with law?

Occurrence of the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, death of the deceased are not in dispute. The claimants claim that as per the judgment of the Hon�ble Supreme Court in Reshma Kumari�s case (AIR 2013 SC (Supp) 474) (supra), the deceased was aged more than 15 years and the multiplier has to be adopted as indicated in Sarla Verma case. The deceased was studying in 8th standard as on the date of accident. The accident is of the year 2008. He is a non-earning member of the family. As per Schedule-II, if the deceased was below 15 years of age, the notional income has to be taken as Rs. 15,000/-. In the instant case, the deceased was aged more than 15 years, the multiplier has to be adopted as per the judgment of the Hon�ble Supreme Court in Sarla Yerma (AIR 2009 S.C 3104) case. Taking the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 4,000/-, deducting 50% towards his personal expenditure, applying the multiplier 18 as per Sarla Verma case, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 4,32,000/- towards loss of dependency. Further, the appellants have lost the love and affection of their son. Hence, they are entitled to a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of love and affection and a sum of Rs. 35,000/- towards funeral and incidental expenditure. In all, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 5,17,000/- as against a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, pass the following:

ORDER

The appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 4-2-2012 passed in MVC No. 6350/2010 on the file of the 18th Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-4, Bangalore is modified. The claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 5,17,000/- as against Rs. 2,25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, thereby they are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs. 2,92,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

Apportionment of the enhanced compensation has to be made as per the order of tribunal.