Vadde Hussainappa and another vs V. Ramanjineyulu and another

B. Manohar, J. - Appellants are the claimants, being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the judgment and award dated 29-01-2011 made in MVC No. 799/2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-XII, Bellary (hereinafter referred to as ''the Tribunal'' for short), have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

Claimants are the father and mother of the deceased Lakshmikantha Raju. It is their case that on 24-06-2010 at about 1.30 p.m., while the deceased Lakshmikantha Raju was proceeding in his motor bike bearing registration No. AP-21/F-9575 slowly on the extreme left side of the road, at that time, a lorry bearing registration No. A AD-7 863 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came from opposite direction and dashed against the motor bike, due to the impact, Lakshmikantha Raju fell down and sustained grievous injuries to vital parts of his body. Subsequently, he succumbed to the injuries. At the time of death, the deceased was aged about 20 years and was working as mason and earning Rs. 300/- per day. In view of death of Lakshmikantha Raju, the family has lost the bread earner and sought for compensation of Rs. 16,80,000/-.

In pursuance of the notice issued by the tribunal, though respondents No. 2 filed written statement denying the entire averments made in the claim petition and also contended that due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorbike by the deceased, the accident had occurred. The vehicle is covered by insurance as on the date of accident. Hence, sought for dismissal of the claim petition as against the owner of the offending vehicle.

The second respondent-insurance company filed written statement denying the entire averments made in the claim petition. Further contended that the rider of the motor bike did not possess the valid and effective driving license and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. The Tribunal after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties held that due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle., the accident occurred and the claimants are entitled for compensation. With regard to quantum of compensation is concerned, though the claimants claimed that the deceased was earning Rs. 300/- per day, no document has been produced to substantiate the same. Taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 150/- per day and Rs. 4,500/- p.m., deducting 50% towards his personal expenditure, considering the age of the mother of the deceased, applying the multiplier 11, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,97,000/- towards loss of dependency and a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards conventional heads. In all, a sum of Rs. 3,12,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimants have preferred this appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation.

Further, the Insurance Company has also preferred an appeal in MFA No. 22433/ 2011 challenging the very same judgment and award with regard to liability fastened upon the Insurance Company to compensate the claimants. The said appeal was dismissed by this Court. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, a Civil Appeal No. 38023/2012 was filed before the Hon''ble Supreme Court, which also came to be dismissed. The only issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is with regard to the quantum of compensation.

Admittedly, the accident occurred during the year 2010. The daily wagers working in any Government Department would earn Rs. 5,500/- p.m., during the relevant period. In the instant case, income of Rs. 4,500/- p.m., taken by the Tribunal is on the lower side. The claimants claim that the deceased was working as a mason. Usually, masons would earn more than Rs. 5,500/-p.m. Hence, the income of the deceased has to be taken as Rs. 5,500/- p.m. 50% is deducted towards personal expenditure. Further, in view of the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Munnalal Jain v. Bipin Kumar Sharma, reported in (2015) 6 SCC 347, while applying the multiplier, the age of the deceased has to be taken instead of age of younger parent of the deceased. hence, taking the income of the deceased as Rs. 5,500/- p.m., deducting 50% toward his personal expenditure and applying the multiplier 18, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 5,94,000/- towards loss of dependency and another sum of Rs. 45,000/- towards conventional heads. In all, they are entitled to a sum of Rs. 3,12,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Accordingly, I pass the following.

ORDER

The appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 29-01-2011 made in MVC No. 799/2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-XII, Bellary is modified. THe claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs. 6,39,000/- as against a sum of Rs. 3,12,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, thereby they are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs. 3,27,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.