VENKATAMMA v. SURENDRAPPA — 1997 DIGILAW 8 (KAR)

H. N. TILHARI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the appellant Sri G. Krishnamurthy and Sri H. G. Ramesh, learned Counsel for the Insurance company-respondent 3. None appears for respondents 1 and 2. ( 2 ) THIS appeal arises from M. V. C. No. 191 of 1987, decided by the Principal District Judge and Member, Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Kolar, allowing the claim of the claimant for compensation in part, the Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs, 38,000/- in total, as also interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum. ( 3 ) THE only point in dispute that has been raised is the quantum of compensation. The claimant-appellant is dissatisfied with the amount so awarded. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the compensation awarded is inadequate and it requires enhancement. ( 4 ) TO complete the facts, it is proper to mention that on 11-6-87, the lorry belonging to respondent 2 and driven by respondent 1, bearing Registration No. MYA-5016, made an accident and in that accident Narayanaswamy aged about 18 years died. According to the claimant who is the sister of deceased Narayanaswamy, deceased was hale and healthy at the time of accident, the deceased was living with the claimant and maintaining the family of the claimant who is the elder sister of the deceased. Claimant's case is that on account of the rash and negligent driving of the lorry, the accident did occur and it dashed against Narayanaswamy which resulted in causing fatal injuries and ultimately in the death of Narayanaswamy. So the claimant filed the claim petition claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 2 lakhs. It has been stated in the claim petition that at the time and immediately earlier to the accident, deceased narayanaswamy was working as a cleaner and agriculturist. His monthly income was about Rs. 1,200/- per month. ( 5 ). The respondents filed the written statement and contested the averments made in the claim petition. It was also asserted by the opposite parties-respondents, that the income of deceased was not more than Rs. 100/- per month and it was asserted that the claim was excessive. ( 6 ) ON the basis of the pleadings the Tribunal framed the following issues:1. The respondents filed the written statement and contested the averments made in the claim petition. It was also asserted by the opposite parties-respondents, that the income of deceased was not more than Rs. 100/- per month and it was asserted that the claim was excessive. ( 6 ) ON the basis of the pleadings the Tribunal framed the following issues:1. Whether the accident in question had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No. MYA-5016? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? 3. Relief? ( 7 ) THE Tribunal after having perused the record and the material on record held that the fatal accident, which had caused the death of Narayanaswamy had occurred on account of and due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the driver of the lorry who is respondent I in the claim petition, as well as in the memo of appeal. The Tribunal as such awarded compensation in total to the tune of Rs. 38,000/-, the bifurcation of which is as under: ( 8 ) THUS a total sum of Rs, 38,000/- with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum, was awarded. The Tribunal further held that Insurance Company's liability is also extended to the same extent as that of the owner of the lorry and all the three were jointly and severally responsible to pay the compensation, with interest and costs. ( 9 ) THE claimant as mentioned earlier has preferred this appeal as she feels that the compensation awarded is not sufficient, but too meagre. Learned Counsel for the appellant has laid great emphasis on this aspect of the matter, particularly with respect to loss of dependency. Learned Counsel submitted that for loss of dependency, compensation at least of Rs. 60,000/- should have been awarded. He further submitted that interest at the rate of 9 per cent is also less and it should have been more. The contentions of the learned Counsel for the appellant have been hotly contested by respondent 3's learned Counsel Sri H. G. Ramesh. Sri H. G. Ramesh contended that deceased was a bachelor and he was not a married person. He had left no wife or children, nor has he left any parents male or female. The contentions of the learned Counsel for the appellant have been hotly contested by respondent 3's learned Counsel Sri H. G. Ramesh. Sri H. G. Ramesh contended that deceased was a bachelor and he was not a married person. He had left no wife or children, nor has he left any parents male or female. The claimant is only the sister and she is a married person, therefore, the claim petition was by itself not maintainable and was misconceived. Sri Ramesh further contended that the sums that have been awarded as compensation are almost sufficient and satisfactory, they do not call for interference, even if it be held that the claim petition was maintainable at the instance of the sister and particularly the married sister of the deceased. On the question of interest Sri Ramesh contended that 9 per cent interest is on the higher side really and it does not call for any interference, as generally interest at the rate of 6 per cent used to be awarded. ( 10 ) I have applied my mind to the contentions made by learned Counsel for the parties. ( 11 ) AS regards the contention of learned Counsel for respondent 3, on the question of maintainability, in my opinion the petition is maintainable even at the instance of the sister, sister and brother stand on the same footing. In the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad v ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and Another , Their Lordships of the supreme Court have been pleased to held that, brother of deceased can maintain the claim petition if he is the legal representative of the deceased, and have been pleased to overrule the law to the contrary laid down by the Madhya pradesh High Court in the case of Budha v Union of India. It will be profitable to refer to the following observations made by hon'ble Venkataramiah, J. , as he then was, in the above mentioned decision, which have been made in paragraph 11 of the judgment. "we feel that the view taken by the Gujarat High Court is in consonance with the principles of justice, equity, and good conscience having regard to the conditions of the indian Society. "we feel that the view taken by the Gujarat High Court is in consonance with the principles of justice, equity, and good conscience having regard to the conditions of the indian Society. Every legal representative who suffers on account of the death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident should have a remedy for realisation of compensation and that is provided by Sections 110-A to 110-F of the Act. These provisions are in consonance with the principles of law of torts that every injury must have a remedy. It is for the Motor Vehicles Accidents Tribunal to determine the compensation which appears to it to be just as provided in Section 110-B of the Act and to specify the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid. The determination of the compensation payable and its apportionment as required by Section 110-B of the Act amongst the legal representatives for whose benefit an application may be filed under Section 110-A of the Act have to be done in accordance with well-known principles of law. We should remember that in an Indian Family brothers, sisters and brothers' children and sometimes foster children live together and they are dependent upon the bread-winner of the family and if the bread-winner is killed on account of a motor vehicle accident, there is no justification to deny them compensation relying upon the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, which as we have already held has been substantially modified by the provisions contained in the Act in relation to cases arising out of motor vehicles accidents. We express our approval of the decision in Megjibhai Khimji Vira v Ghaturbhai taljabhai and hold that the brother of a person who dies in a motor vehicle accident is entitled to maintain a petition under Section 110-A of the Act if he is a legal representative of the deceased". ( 12 ) AS per Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act read with Entry II of Class II of the Schedule, the brother and sister are legal heirs and legal representatives of the deceased male hindu. ( 12 ) AS per Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act read with Entry II of Class II of the Schedule, the brother and sister are legal heirs and legal representatives of the deceased male hindu. So the claimant being the sister is the legal representative, no doubt under Hindu Law, could have succeeded to the estate of deceased, as there is no other heir either of Class I, nor any heir mentioned in Entry I of Class II and as deceased was a bachelor there is no question of his having any sons or daughters. Since brother and sister being the legal representative, the claimant has been the legal representative and as evidence prove that she was dependent on the income of the deceased, the claim petition at the instance and on behalf of the appellant is maintainable. ( 13 ) WHEN I so opine that the deceased is entitled to maintain the claim petition, claiming compensation, I find support from the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of The general Manager, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, bangalore v Peerappa Parasappa Sangolli and Others. ( 14 ) IN my opinion the multiplier of 5' has wrongly been applied by the Tribunal. The deceased was aged 18 years at the time of accident. He would have married at some time by or after 5 years. After the marriage no doubt the family problems would have taken place with a gap of at least 3 years. So at least for 8 years beyond doubt the deceased would have provided or contributed to the maintenance of the family of the sister and the claimant-sister would have been benefited. The claimant's husband, as has come in the evidence, is disabled person. He is suffering from leprosy. Any way when the deceased was living with his elder sister he must have been contributing to the maintenance of the family. The Tribunal has also opined that we can take that he must have been contributing a sum of Rs. 500/- per month to the family of the claimant. The Tribunal has opined that he would have contributed at least for another five years. In my opinion, the contribution for five years may be mistaken, he could have contributed for at least 7 or 8 years. 500/- per month to the family of the claimant. The Tribunal has opined that he would have contributed at least for another five years. In my opinion, the contribution for five years may be mistaken, he could have contributed for at least 7 or 8 years. Thus for 7 to 8 years from the date of occurrence, the claimant and her family would have benefited. Therefore, in such a case in my opinion, the multiplier of 7' should have been applied. When we apply the multiplier of 7' to assess the loss of dependency, it comes to Rs. 500 x 12 (months) x 7, which brings the figure Rs. 42,000/ -. So loss of dependency is assessed at Rs. 42,000/ -. That the claimant would be entitled to that amount instead of Rs. 30,000/- as found by the Tribunal. As regards loss of expectation of life, it has been assessed at Rs. 6,0007- by the tribunal. In my opinion there is no discrepancy or mistake in such assessment. The Tribunal has also assessed a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards transportation of the dead body, funeral expenses etc. There is no dispute about it and I need not go into that. Thus considered, in my opinion, the claimant is entitled to the compensation as under. ( 15 ) THUS, the appeal is partly allowed as mentioned above and the appellant is entitled to compensation in total to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- with interest at the rate of 9 per cent from the date of application till the date of payment in respect of the amount which has not been paid so far and cost of Trial Court, i. e. , Tribunal. The costs of this appeal are made easy. --- *** --- .