AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ram Mohan Reddy, J.—1. Since common questions of law and that of fact arise for decision making, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, appeals are clubbed together, finally heard and disposed of by this judgment.
MFA 11366/2011 arises out of MVC 2160/2010, is filed by the claimant injured in the accident, whence this Court by order dated 11.03.2016 recorded a finding confirming the finding of the MACT attributing actionable negligence on the driver of the offending motor vehicle and fastening liability to pay compensation on the appellant insurer while the driver of the motor vehicle was held not to be Lakshminarayan but one Krishna in accordance with the charge sheet and that the occupants of the motor vehicles were not gratuitous passengers.
In the light of the aforesaid findings, the appeals arise out of the very same accident, hence the aforesaid order is applicable to these appeals. The contention identical to the contention urged in the aforesaid appeals are rejected.
MFA 10791/2013 arises out of compensation awarded to the claimants in MVC 5458/2010 due to death of one Parvathamma, aged 55, who succumbed to grievous injuries in the accident that occurred on 22.02.2010 involving a motor vehicle insured by the appellant. Although there was no material whatsoever placed before Court by the widower, first claimant; the son, second claimant; and married daughter, 3rd claimant, over the income of deceased, nevertheless, MACT reckoned Rs. 4,500/- as monthly income of the deceased to which was added 15%, i.e., Rs. 675/- to arrive at Rs. 5,175/- as monthly loss of income, in the light of the decision in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation , (2009)6 SCC 121 deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses to arrive at Rs. 41,400/- as the annual loss of dependency and applying the multiplier 11, determined Rs. 4,55,400/- towards loss of dependency to which was added Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium; Rs. 25,000/- towards loss to estate; Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs. 25,000/- towards transportation, funeral expenses and obsequies ceremony totaling to Rs. 6,20,400/- with interest at 6% per annum, by the judgment and award impugned.
Sri B.A. Ramakrishna, learned counsel for the appellant insurer submits that MACT was not justified in reckoning Rs. 4,500/- as monthly income of the deceased and further was not justified in adding 15%, of that income i.e., Rs. 675/- as future prospects, since the deceased was not in a regular employment and was not earning a fixed salary. According to the learned counsel, MACT at best, could have awarded compensation towards loss to estate and loss of services of the deceased to the family.
Per contra, learned counsel for claimants seeks to sustain the judgment and award impugned as being well merit, fully justified and not calling for interference.
There is force in the submission of Sri B.A. Ramakrishna, learned counsel. A Division Bench of this Court in A. Manavalagan v. A. Krishnamurthy and others , ILR 2004 KAR 3268 while summarizing principles enunciated in several opinions of the Apex Court at paragraph 19 provided illustrations at paragraph 20 and the note under sub paragraph (iv) relevant for our purpose which reads thus:
"Note: The position would be different if the husband and wife, were both earning, and living together under a common roof, sharing the expenses. As stated in BURGESS v. FLORENCE NIGHTINGALE HOSPITAL (1955(1) Q.B. 349), ''when a husband and wife, with separate incomes are living together and sharing their expenses, and in consequence of that fact, their joint living expenses are less than twice the expenses of each one living separately, then each, by the fact of sharing, is conferring a benefit on the other''. This results in a higher savings, say, one-third of the income; In addition each spouse loses the benefit of services rendered by the other in managing the household, which can be evaluated at say Rs. 1,000/- per month or Rs. 12,000/- per annum. In such a situation, the claimant (surviving spouse) will be entitled to compensation both under the head of loss of dependency (for loss of services rendered in managing the household) and loss to estate (savings to an extent of one-third of the income that is Rs. 3,000/- per month or Rs. 36,000/- per annum). Therefore, the loss of dependency would be 12000 x 14=1,68,000/- and loss to estate would be 36000 x 14 : 5,04,000/-. In all Rs. 6,72,000/- will be the compensation."
(emphasis supplied)
In the absence of material particulars relating to the income of the deceased, it is needless to state that ethos of this Country dictates that women folk in rural area serve the house hold in several ways commencing from services to the husband, children, in-laws, attending to the cattle, making the house-hold to function and many other such allied activities, services which cannot be equated in terms of money.
In Lata Wadhwa and others v. State of Bihar and others , AIR 2001 SC 3218, the Apex Court observed that in case of deceased house wives, in the absence of any data and as the house wives were not earning any income, an attempt was made to determine compensation, on the basis of services rendered by them to the house. On the basis of the age group of the house wives, appropriate multiplier was permitted to be applied, but the estimation of the value of services was arrived at Rs. 12,000/- per annum in cases of some and Rs. 10,000/- for others, which was said to grossly inadequate. Their Lordships observed that even in the absence of such data and taking into consideration, the multifarious services rendered by house wives for managing the entire family, even on a modest estimation should be Rs. 3,000/- per month and Rs. 36,000/- per annum which would apply to all those house wives between the age group of 34 to 50 and as such who are active in life. It was further observed that the compensation awarded therefore, should be recalculated, taking the value of services rendered per annum to be Rs. 36,000/- and thereafter applying the multiplier as has been applied already and so far as conventional amount is concerned, the same should be Rs. 50,000/- instead of Rs. 25,000/-. The facts of that case related to a fire accident on 03rd March 1989 at Jamshedpur while celebrating 150th Birthday Anniversary of Sir Jamshedji Tata whence a devastating fire engulfed the VIP pandal and area surrounding.
If regard is had to the above observations of the Division Bench in Manavalagan''s case (supra) and decision in Lata Wadhwa''s case, (supra) it is needless to state that reckoning Rs. 4,500/- per month as the money equivalent of services rendered by the deceased Parvathamma, a house wife, the MACT was fully justified in reckoning the said income. The question therefore is, "Whether the MACT in the facts circumstances and evidence on record, was justified in awarding compensation towards loss of dependency by reckoning Rs. 4,500/- per month as income and adding 15% to it towards future prospects?"
Needless to state that in the given circumstances, first claimant husband having lost the benefit of service rendered by deceased Parvathamma, wife in managing the house hold, that could be evaluated at Rs. 2,000/- per month or Rs. 24,000/- per annum, entitling claimants to compensation both under the head of loss of dependency (for loss of services rendered in managing the house hold) and loss to estate (savings to an extent of 1/3rd of the income) i.e., Rs. 18,000/- per annum. The age of the deceased was 55 as on the date of accident and death and therefore, appropriate multiplier is 11. In that view of the matter, loss of dependency is Rs. 24,000/- x 11 which is Rs. 2,64,000/- and loss to estate is Rs. 18,000/- x 11 which is Rs. 1,98,000/-, in all Rs. 4,62,000/-.
The MACT awarded Rs. 4,55,400/- towards loss of dependency and Rs. 25,000/- towards loss to estate. This put together is Rs. 4,80,400/- as against Rs. 4,62,000/- and therefore, there is excess compensation of Rs. 18,400/-.
The award of compensation under conventional heads of loss of consortium and funeral expenses as well as loss of love and affection, do not call for interference.
In the result, MFA 10791/2013 is allowed in part. Common judgment and award insofar as it relates to MVC 5458/2010 is modified reducing the compensation by Rs. 18,400/- and in all other respects, remains unaltered.
Although the insurer of the offending motor vehicle has preferred MFA 10789/2013 calling in question the common judgment and award, insofar as it relates to MVC 3749/2010 determining compensation of Rs. 66,438/- under several heads of damage for grievous injuries in the nature of fracture of 2nd and 3rd rib fracture on left side CT thorax revealed hemothorax on left side and MRI cervical spine revealed contusion of neck muscles with upper lobe of left lung, having examined the judgment and award impugned and material on record, there is no legal flaw in the said determination calling for interference. MFA 10789/2013 dismissed.
MFA 10790/2013 is directed against the common judgment and award insofar as it relates to MVC 4650/2010 awarding compensation of Rs. 7,77,995/- with interest at 6% per annum. MACT, having regard to the nature of injuries suffered by the claimant viz., laceration of spleen, haemopneumothorax on left side, fracture of left clavicle and scapula, multiple fracture of ribs on left side (2-7 ribs) coupled with the discharge summary, Ex. P.7 of Columbia Asia Hospital, Bengaluru, relating to treatment as inpatient from 22.02.2010 to 01.04.2010 whence surgery was performed with emergency laparotomy and splenectomy with closure of diaphragmatic laceration and other surgeries as extracted in the judgment, awarded the following compensation.
An examination of the judgment and award impugned and the evidence, both oral and documentary, no exception can be taken to the award of compensation under the aforesaid different heads of damage by the MACT. MFA 10790/2013, devoid of merit, dismissed. Amount in deposit in each of the appeals is directed to be transmitted to the MACT, forthwith.