VANAJAKSHI vs THE UNIT MANAGER

Appellants are the claimants, being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the judgment and award dated 05-10-2013 made in MVC No.21/2013 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, K.R.Nagar (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short) filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

The appellants are wife, sons, father and mother of the deceased Chandrahasa. In the claim petition, it was contended that on 15-08-2012, the deceased Chandrahasa was driving the auto rickshaw bearing Registration No.KA- 06/B-8703 on Hassan-Mysore Road and when he was near Bherya village, driver of the KSRTC bus bearing Registration No.KA-13/F-1797 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the said auto rickshaw. Due to that, the driver of the auto rickshaw fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over the body and subsequently he succumbed to the injuries. In the claim petition, it was contended that the deceased was working as an auto driver and also doing agricultural work and earning Rs.35,000/- p.m. Due to the death of the deceased, the family has lost the bread earner and hence sought for compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-.

In response to the notice issued by the Tribunal, the respondents-Corporation entered appearance and filed written statement contending that due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto rickshaw itself, the accident occurred and hence there is contributory negligence on the part of driver of the auto rickshaw. The compensation claimed is exorbitant and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues.

In order to prove the case of the claimants, the first claimant got examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. On behalf of the respondents, one of the officers of the insurance company was examined as R.W.1 and got marked two documents as Ex.R1 and Ex.R2.

The Tribunal after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties and taking into consideration IMV report, spot panchanama, copy of the sketch and complaint held that due to the actionable negligence on the part of driver of the bus, the accident occurred; claimants are the dependants of the deceased and they are entitled for compensation. With regard to quantum of compensation is concerned, though the claimants claimed that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.35,000/- p.m., as an auto driver and also doing agricultural work, no document has been produced to substantiate the same. The Tribunal taking into consideration the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- p.m., applying the multiplier 15 since the deceased was aged between 35 to 38 years, deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenditure awarded a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- towards loss of dependency and Rs.40,000/- towards conventional heads. In all, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. The claimants being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, taking the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- p.m., have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

The dispute in this appeal is only with regard to quantum of compensation is concerned.

Heard Smt.Archana P. Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri.F.S.Dabali, learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Perused the judgment and award and oral and documentary evidence.

There is no dispute regarding occurrence of the accident and death of Chandrahasa. Though the claimants claim that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.35,000/- p.m., no document has been produced to substantiate the same. However the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- p.m., which is on the lower side. The accident occurred in the year 2012. Even the daily wage employees working in various Government Departments and agricultural coolies would earn more than Rs.7,000/- p.m., hence, the Tribunal ought to have taken reasonable income while awarding compensation. At the young age of 30 years, the wife has lost her husband, two minor children have lost the love and affection of their father and aged parents have lost the love and care of their son at their fag end of life. Hence, taking the income of the deceased as Rs.7,000/- p.m., deducting 1/4th towards personal expenditure, since there are five dependants, applying the multiplier 15, the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.9,45,000/- towards loss of dependency as against Rs.3,60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. As per the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in 2013 ACJ 1403 in the case of RAJESH AND OTHERS v/s RAJBIR SINGH AND OTHERS, the wife is entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium. Further, the minor children are entitled to a sum of Rs.25,000/- each towards loss of love and affection. Further the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.45,000/- towards conventional heads. In all, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.11,40,000/- as against Rs.4,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER

The appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 05-10-2013 made in MVC No.21/2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, K.R.Nagar is modified. The claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.11,40,000/- as against Rs.4,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at the rate of 8% p.a., thereby the claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.7,40,000/-.

A sum of Rs.50,000/- already paid by the KSRTC towards interim compensation may be permitted to be deducted.

The apportionment of the compensation amount is to be made as per the order of the Tribunal.