Varalakshmi and Others vs Ibrahim and Others

S. Abdul Nazeer, J.—This appeal by the claimants is directed against the judgment and award in MVC No. 533/2010 dated 12.10.2010 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge & JMFC-cum-Member, IV-MACT, Hospet.

The first appellant/claimant is the mother of one Thippeswamy and the other appellant/claimants are his brothers and sister. Thippeswamy died in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 10.2.2010. Therefore, they filed MVC No. 533/2010 before the Tribunal seeking compensation.

The respondent-Insurance Company has filed its written statement. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed the necessary issues. The first claimant was examined as P.W1 and documents Ex. P1 to Ex. P9 were marked in her evidence. The respondents have not let in any oral evidence. However, the policy of the insurance was marked by consent of the parties as Ex. R1.

The Tribunal on appreciation of the materials on record, has held that Thippeswamy has succumbed to the injuries sustained by him in the accident occurred on 10.2.2010 on account of actionable negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal, has awarded total compensation of Rs. 3,71,000/- with 6% interest from the date of the petition till the date of deposit.

The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate. It is argued that the deceased was earning Rs. 4,500/- per month by working as a coolie. He was aged about 20 years. The Tribunal has taken into consideration the age of the mother of the deceased for adopting the multiplier. It is argued that having regard to the decision of the Apex Court in Munna Lal Jain and Others Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and Others , the Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the age of the deceased for adopting the multiplier. It is argued that the compensation awarded under all other heads is also on the lower side.

On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd of the income towards the personal expenses of the deceased instead of deducting 50% of his earning as he was a bachelor. It is argued that the compensation awarded under all heads is just and proper.

We have carefully considered the arguments made by the learned Counsel at the Bar and perused the materials placed on record.

It is not in dispute that the accident had occurred on account of the actionable negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. There is also no dispute as to the liability of the respondent-Insurance Company to pay the compensation.

Therefore, the only question for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?

As noticed above, the accident had occurred on 10.2.2010. The claimants have contended that the deceased was working as a coolie and earning Rs. 4,500/- per month. The Tribunal has notionally fixed his income at Rs. 100/- per day. It cannot be disputed that during the material time, a coolie would have earned atleast Rs. 150/- per day. We are of the view that the Tribunal ought to have notionally fixed the income of the deceased at Rs. 150/- per day (Rs. 4,500/- per month). As held in MUNNALALs case (supra), the age of the deceased has to be taken for adopting the proper multiplier. The deceased was aged 20 years. Therefore, the proper multiplier applicable for the purpose of computation of loss of dependency is 18. The Tribunal has assigned cogent reasons for deducting 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses, which is clear from paragraph 23 of the judgment and award. We do not find any error in the said reasoning By taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,500/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd of the income towards his personal expenses and with the application of multiplier 18, the compensation payable towards loss of dependency comes to Rs. 6,48,000/-. The claimants are also entitled for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards other expenses.

Thus, the compensation payable to the claimants is reassessed as under:

The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,71,000/- which has to be deducted from the aforesaid amount and the balance of compensation payable to the claimants is Rs. 3,27,000/-. The said sum of Rs. 3,27,000/- shall carry interest at 6% per annum.

In the result, the appeal succeeds and it is accordingly allowed in part. The third respondent - Insurance company is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 3,27,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the application till the date of deposit in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The first appellant is permitted to withdraw the amount on its deposit. No costs.