AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. K. Bhakthavatsala, J.—The appellant/Insurance company is before this Court contending that Tribunal erred in holding that accident occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of the car bearing registration No. KA-20-A-5666 by its driver. He submitted that accident occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle hearing registration No. KA-20-H-8085 by the claimant himself. He also submits that Tribunal has awarded exhorbitant compensation. He prays that impugned judgment and award may be set aside and the claim petition may be dismissed. There is no representation for respondents-1 to 3/claimants.
Perused the L.C.R.
It is the case of the claimants namely, wife and two sons of the deceased B Ramesh Pai that on 16-5-2006 at about 5.45 a.m. when the deceased was going on the scooter for Yoga class and when he was near Kamath Motors Show Room, car bearing registration No.KA-20-A-5666 driven by its driver came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the scooter and as a result of which the rider of the scooter fell down and sustained grievous injuries. He was admitted to Kasturba Hospital but died on 21-5-2006 on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident Claimants filed a claim petition seeking compensation towards death of Ramesh Pai.
Owner of the car filed written statement denying averments of the claim petition and sought for dismissal of the same. In para No. 9 of the statement of objections, it was averred that accident occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving by the rider of the scooter and there was no negligent act on the part of the driver of the car.
Insurance company also filed written statement denying averments of the claim petition and sought for dismissal of the same.
In view of the pleadings, Tribunal framed the following issues:
1) Whether the petitioner proves that the accident in question occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing Reg. No. KA-20-A-5666 by its driver?
2) Whether the 3rd respondent proves that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent, driving of the driver of the vehicle bearing No. KA-20-H-5055?
3) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
4) What award or order?
In support of the case of the claimants, son of the deceased namely Girish Pai was examined as P.W. 1 and got marked documents Exhibits-F-1 to P-8. Respondents did not adduce rebuttal evidence. Tribunal, en appreciation of the evidence placed on record, answered issue No. 1 in the affirmative, issue No. 2 in the negative in favour of the claimants holding that accident occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver. Tribunal has fixed income of the deceased at Rs. 7,000/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd of the income towards personal expenses, fixed loss of dependency at Rs. 56,000/- per annum and applied multiplier 11 and awarded compensation of Rs. 6,16,000/- towards loss of dependency. Tribunal has awarded compensation in favour of the claimants as under:
1) Loss of dependency
Rs. 6,16,000/-
2) Medical expenses
Rs. 3,000/
3) conveyance
Rs. 1,500/
4) funeral expenses
Rs. 3,000/-
5) loss of love & affection
Rs. 20,000/-
6) loss of consortium
Rs. 10,000/-
Total:
Rs. 6,53,500/ -
Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Tribunal has held that liability of respondents-1 to 3 is joint and several, which is impugned in this appeal by the insurance company.
Claimants are wife aged about 55 years. Two sons are aged about 29 years and 22 years respectively. It is the case of claimants that deceased was working as Assistant News Editor in Kannada Daily ''Udayavani'' drawing salary of Rs. 15,000/- and earning Rs. 2,500/-per month from agriculture. Admittedly, police registered a criminal case against driver of the car u/s 279 & 304A IPC Driver of the oar did not step into the witness box to explain about manner of accident and to establish that accident occurred either due to rash and negligent driving by the rider of the scooter or there was any contributory negligence on the part of rider of the scooter. Under such circumstances, Tribunel is justified in holding that accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver. The police have booked criminal case against driver of the car, We see no good ground to interfere with the finding recorded by the Tribunal on issue Nos. 1, and 2.
Insofar as quantum of compensation is concerned, as stated above, Tribunal has awarded compensation under the head loss of dependency at Rs. 6,16,000/- Ex. P-5 is the pay slip of the deceased for the month of April, 2006, which is issued by Manipal Media Network Limited, Manipal, According to that, gross salary was Rs. 12,589.20 After deducting amount towards bank loan, PF, LIC, net salary was Rs. 10,464,50 Ex. P-6 is the original driving licence of the deceased. The deceased was born on 14-8-1949 and as on the date of accident, the deceased was 59 years, 9 months and 2 days old. He falls in the age group of 56-60 year''s. According to the ratio laid down in Sarala Varma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation 2009(6) SCC page 121, multiplier 9 is applicable. Claimants have not produced any record to show that deceased was owning agricultural land and thereby earning Rs. 2,500/- per month. Taking into consideration that claimant was due to retire at the age of 58 years, Tribunal has not taken the salary of the deceased at Rs. 12,589.20. Therefore, Tribunal has fixed the income of the deceased at an average of Rs. 7,000/-per month. Learned counsel for the Insurance company submits that Tribunal erred in deducting 1/3rd instead of 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased as there is only one dependent namely, wife and the claimants-2 and 3 (adult children) are not dependent on (sic) caring of the deceased. In the instant case, claimants are wife and two adult sons. Merely because sons are not dependent, he would spend 50% of has income towards personal expenses The deceased was a journalist. In our view, compensation of Rs. 6,16,000/-awarded towards loss of dependency cannot be said to be on the higher side. Accident occurred on 16-5-2006 and the injured died on 21-5-2006. Compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards conventional heads are on the lower side. There is no merit in the appeal. In the result, appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed. Registry is directed to transmit the amount in deposit to the Tribunal for disbursement. No costs.