Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 471 (KAR)

Avalambi v. M. D. Patel

2000-07-10

H.N.TILHARI, T.N.VALLINAYAGAM

body2000
JUDGMENT T.N. Vallinayagam, J.—This appeal is directed against the award in M.V.C. No. 77 of 1990, on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, dated 29th January, 1994, wherein the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 75,500/-, against the claim for compensation of Rs. 4,50,000/-; seeking enhancement of the award of compensation, the Appellant, namely, mother of the deceased is before this Court. 2. The case of the present Appellant before the Tribunal was, that one Hussain, who is the son of the Appellant, was aged about 22 years, and who was working as a Cleaner under 2nd Respondent, on a monthly income of more than Rs. 900/- died of an accident, which is the subject matter of MVC. On the fateful day of 9.7.1989, the said Hussain, Cleaner in the Lorry, was travelling in the lorry bearing Registration No. CTW 6824, sitting at the left door of the lorry. At about 2.30 p.m., the lorry took a left turn at Veerananjeepura gate on Bangalore-Tumkur Road, and Hussain fell down from the lorry when the door suddenly opened and was run over by the left rear wheel resulting in spot death. The Appellant's husband also died about 10 months ago. The Appellant was living with her minor children Malang and Pyarijan. The deceased was the sole bread winner of the family. On these averments, seeking compensation of Rs. 4,50,000/-, the Appellant came before the Tribunal. 3. The Respondents filed a joint objection statement admitting that the decreased was working as a Cleaner under the second Respondent, but however, contended that he was earning only Rs. 15/- daily. The accident was also admitted, but it was submitted that it was due to the negligence of the deceased in not closing the front door properly, and thus the Cleaner became victim to the accident. The quantum claimed was also disputed. 4. The Tribunal below considered the question of negligence by framing issue No. 1, and answered such issue in favour of claimant accepting the evidence of PW-1, and also the FIR Ex.P1, spot Mahazar Ex.P2, police notice Ex.P4, Charge sheet Ex.P5, and conviction order Ex.P6. The Tribunal held that 1st Respondent driver of the lorry was responsible for the accident and negligence was on his part. 5. The Tribunal held that 1st Respondent driver of the lorry was responsible for the accident and negligence was on his part. 5. On the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal applying a multiplier of 11 and holding that the income of the deceased was Rs. 750/- per month, and deducting 1/3 thereof, came to the conclusion that the loss of dependency was Rs. 66,000/-. The loss of expectation of life and the consequential loss to the estate was estimated to Rs. 6,000/-; For the funeral expenses, as against the claim of Rs. 12,000/-, a sum of Rs. 3,500/- was fixed. Thus an award for a total sum of Rs. 75,500/- was granted by the Tribunal. 6. Complaining inadequacy of the quantum of compensation the mother of the deceased has come forward with the above appeal. 7. Mr. I.G. Gachchinamath, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that the income of the Cleaner ought to have been taken as Rs. 900/-, apart from Rs. 30/-, batta per day. He further submitted that the multiplier applied was a wrong multiplier. Taking into consideration of the age of the deceased which was only 21 years, and age of the mother comes to only 42 years, a higher multiplier must be applied. The mother having been left with minor children and having lost her husband, they were depending on the elder son the deceased. It was claimed that ultimately for loss of future life and loss of love and affection, the Tribunal ought to have granted higher compensation than has been awarded. 8. On the other hand, learned Counsel Ramesh, appearing for the Respondent contended that following Bhandari's case, the proper multiplier is applied by the Trial Court, and income ought to have been taken only at Rs. 150/-, as it is taken by the Trial Court in the absence of any evidence contrary or any document produced by the Appellant. 9. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 10. So far as the income of the deceased is concerned, the mother examined herself as PW-1, and deposed that her deceased son was getting daily wages of Rs. 30/-. She denied the suggestion that it was only Rs. 20/-, and not Rs. 30/-. It is true that she could not produce any certificate being illiterate lady. 10. So far as the income of the deceased is concerned, the mother examined herself as PW-1, and deposed that her deceased son was getting daily wages of Rs. 30/-. She denied the suggestion that it was only Rs. 20/-, and not Rs. 30/-. It is true that she could not produce any certificate being illiterate lady. But in the absence of any evidence contra, there is no reason to disbelieve her claim that the deceased was getting a minimum of Rs. 30/-, as a Cleaner. We are inclined to accept that the income of the deceased should be taken as Rs. 900/-, taking Rs. 30/-, as daily earnings; deducting 1/3rd for his personal expenses, we arrive at Rs. 600/-. Taking into consideration the age of the deceased, and the age of the mother which is 42, we deem it proper to apply the multiplier 15. We take guidance from 2nd Schedule of the amended Motor Vehicles Act. Applying such a multiplier, the amount comes to Rs. 1,08,000/-, towards the loss of dependency. For expectation of future life and consequent loss to the estate, which has been estimated by the Trial Court at Rs. 6,000/-, is increased to Rs. 12,000/-, since no amount has been given for the loss of love and affection by the Trial Court, and we grant a sum of Rs. 12,000/-, under that head. We confirm the grant of Rs. 3,500/-, for funeral expenses. Thus a total compensation of Rs. 1,32,500/-, is fixed and the compensation is enhanced from Rs. 75,500/- to Rs. 1,32,500/-. 11. On the question of interest, the Trial Court has chosen to grant 6% per annum. Taking into consideration the circumstances of the case, and following the view of this Court in the case of Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 1890 of 1994, dated 6.1.1999, we deem it proper to grant interest of 9%, on the enhanced amount only from the date of petition till the date of payment, and the enhanced compensation shall be deposited for a period of 5 years in a Nationalised Bank. They will be entitled to withdraw interest earned every month or every quarterly. 12. Accordingly the appeal is allowed. We make no order as to cost.