United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs S. Pavithra

N.K. Patil, J.

This appeal by the appellant- Insurer is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 19/04/2014 passed in MVC No. 481/2013, by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-V, Davanagere, (hereinafter referred to as ''Tribunal'' for short). The Tribunal by its judgment and award has awarded a sum of Rs. 18,65,000/- under different heads with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization, as against the claim of the claimants for a sum of Rs. 26,23,200/-, on account of the death of the deceased, Sri. Venkatanarayana Swamy, in the road traffic accident.

In brief, the facts of the case are:

"The claimants are the wife, minor children and parents of the deceased. On account of the death of the deceased in the road traffic accident, they filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation against the driver, owner and Insurer of the offending vehicle, contending that, on 13.4.2013 at about 9.30 p.m. deceased was proceeding by walk near Nelahonne Thanda, at that time, the driver of the Lorry bearing Reg. No. KA.27.B.256 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the deceased from back side. Due to which, deceased sustained grievous injuries all over the body and died at the spot."

It is the further case of the claimants that, deceased was aged about 31 years, working as SDA/SDC in Sri. Gnanaganga Vidhyalaya at Kundur village and drawing the salary of Rs. 8,600/- per month and looking after the welfare of the family. On account of his untimely death, the claimants have put to great hardship and financial distress, apart from mental shock and agony.

The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and other material available on file, has allowed the claim petition in part and awarded the compensation of Rs. 18,65,000/- under different heads with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization.

Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the Insurer has presented this appeal, on the ground that, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side and disproportionate to the income of the deceased and therefore, it is liable to be reduced substantially.

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurer.

The submission of the learned counsel appearing for appellant/insurer, at the outset is that, the Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 7,500/- per month without having any credible documents to show that he was earning the said amount and also erred in adding another 50% towards future prospects and therefore, it is liable to be modified. To substantiate the said submission, he submitted that, the Tribunal placing reliance on Exs. P10 and P12 Pay Role (Batawade) and on the basis of the submission of the counsel appearing for the claimants that having regard to the age, occupation his income may be taken at Rs. 7,500/- per month and added another 50% towards future prospects following the judgment of the Apex Court reported in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, and awarded the loss of dependency. He further submits that the compensation awarded towards conventional heads is on the higher side. Therefore, he submitted that the reasoning given by the Tribunal in para-17 of the judgment cannot be sustained and is liable to be modified by reducing the compensation reasonably.

After hearing the learned counsel appearing for appellant and after careful perusal of the material available on record at threadbare, including the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the only point that arises for our consideration is:

"Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is sustainable in law?"

The occurrence of the accident and the resultant death of the deceased are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that deceased was aged about 31 years, working as SDA/SDC in Sri. Gnanaganga Vidhyalaya at Kundur. What is in dispute is, the contents of Exs. PIO and P12 are not sufficient to show that deceased was getting the income of Rs. 8,600/- per month. As per Ex.P10-salary certificate, the salary of the deceased is shown as Rs. 8,600/-per month and the same has been issued by the Head Master of Sri. Gnanaganga Educational Society, Kundur village, Honnali Taluk, Davanagere District. The Tribunal, after due consideration of the oral and documentary evidence available on file and after elaborately discussing the same in para-12 of its judgment and placing reliance on Exs. P10 and P12 as there is no explanation about the inconsistency with regard to the pleadings and the documentary evidence, on the basis of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for claimants that having regard to the post held by the deceased at the time of accident and the claimants are his wife, minor children and parents, his income may be taken at Rs. 7,500/- per month, has assessed his income at Rs. 7,500/- per month, after assigning valid reasons. The Tribunal, after adding another 50% ( Rs. 3,750/-) towards future prospects following the judgment of the Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, , has determined the total income of the deceased at Rs. 11,250/- per month and at Rs. 1,35,000/- per annum, after deducting 1/4th ( Rs. 33,750/-) towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased since there are five claimants and applying Multiplier of ''16'' since deceased was aged about 31 years, has awarded a sum of Rs. 16,20,000/- towards loss of dependency. The reasoning given by the Tribunal in para-17 of its judgment for awarding loss of dependency is just and reasonable. Further, the Tribunal, taking into consideration that, wife has lost her life partner/companion at her young age and children are deprived of the love and affection, guidance, security and inspiration of their father and parents have suffered mental shock and agony on account of the death of their son and nothing worthwhile has been elicited in the cross-examination of PWs 1 and 2 and the questions put to them by the Insurer have been denied by them in toto and following the latest judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others, has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of care and guidance, love affection for minor children and in all Rs. 18,65,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization. The said compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and we do not find any error or unreasonableness or illegality in the same. In fact, the Tribunal ought to have awarded interest at the rate of 9 to 10 % p.a. in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court and this Court since the accident is of the year 2013. Taking all these factors into consideration, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed as devoid of merit.

The amount deposited by the appellant/Insurer shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal forthwith.

Office is directed to draw the award, accordingly.

In view of dismissal of the main matter on merits, the relief sought by the appellant in I.A. No. 1/2014 does not survive for consideration Hence, it is disposed off as having become infructuous.