Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 784 (KAR)

Anitha K. R. Keshavamurthy v. B. W. S. S. B.

2008-12-17

ARALI NAGARAJ, V.GOPALA GOWDA

body2008
JUDGMENT ( 1. ) THESE three MFAs, have arisen from the same judgment and award dated 12-9-2005 passed in MVC no. 3847/1998 by the MACT, Bangalore (SCCH-2). The appellants in MFA No. 1503/2006 have sought for enhancement of the compensation awarded in their favour towards the death of one K. R. Keshavamurthy as a result of motor vehicle accident; MFA No. 3337/2006 is filed by Bangalore Water supply and Sewerage Board ('bwssb' in short)and MFA No. 295/2006 is filed by the bangalore Mahanagar Palike ('bmp' in short), challenging the findings of the Tribunal in the impugned judgment as to liability of these appellants (respondents before the Tribunal)to pay compensation to the claimants therein jointly with Respondent No. 7 namely 'bmp' (Respondent No. 4 before the Tribunal ). Therefore, all these MFAs, are disposed of by a common judgment. ( 2. ) THERE has been delay of 10 days in filing MFA No. 1503/2006 and 56 days in filing MFA No. 3337/2006 and, therefore, the respective appellants have filed their applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of the said delay. Accepting the cause shown therein, the said applications are allowed and the delay is condoned. The case of the claimants (hereinafter the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal) as averred in their claim petition filed under Section 166 of the MV act, 1988, before the Tribunal is as under : (a) On 19-2-1998 at about 7. 10 p. m. when the deceased K. R. Keshavamurthy, who was the husband of the claimant No. 1, the father of claimant No. 2 and the son of claimant Nos. 3 and 4, was riding the Kinetic Honda bearing registration No. KA-02/1-4205 belonging to the first respondent who happened to be his brother-in-law, on Tank Bund Road in bangalore City, he could not notice the manhole that was in the middle of the road as it was unguarded and no signs were exhibited nearby it showing its the existence there. Consequently, the vehicle fell into the said manhole and he was thrown on the road and sustained fatal injuries to his head and other parts of the body. Though, he was taken to the hospital, immediately, he succumbed to the said injuries on the very next day of the accident i. e. on 20-2-1998. (b) The Respondent Nos. Consequently, the vehicle fell into the said manhole and he was thrown on the road and sustained fatal injuries to his head and other parts of the body. Though, he was taken to the hospital, immediately, he succumbed to the said injuries on the very next day of the accident i. e. on 20-2-1998. (b) The Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 before the Tribunal, respectively 'bwssb' and 'bmp' were responsible in negligently keeping the said manhole un-guarded and without putting any signboard nearby it to show its existence there. Therefore, both the said respondents are liable jointly and severally to pay compensation to the claimants towards the death of the deceased. The Respondent nos. 1 and 2 (before the Tribunal) respectively being the owner and insurer of the said kinetic Honda are also included in the claim petition though the said accident was mainly due to the negligence on the part of the 3rd and 4th Respondent. ( 3. ) RESPONDENT Nos. 1 to 4 in the claim petition filed their respective written statement, contesting it. The first Respondent being the owner of the said Kinetic Honda has contended in his written statement that he, being the relative of the deceased, permitted him to use the said vehicle and the said accident occurred while the deceased was riding the said vehicle and as such, this first Respondent is in no way responsible to the occurrence of the accident and consequent death of the deceased. The second respondent namely new India Assurance Company Ltd. the insurer of the said Kinetic Honda has also contended that since the deceased did not cause any injury to or death of any 3rd party by riding the said vehicle, it (Insurance Company) is not liable to pay any amount of compensation to the claimants towards the death of the deceased. ( 4. ) THE 3rd Respondent 'bwssb' contended that the said manhole was neither constructed by it nor was it maintained by it and the said manhole was a stored water drainage constructed and maintained by the 4th respondent 'bmp' and as such, this 3rd respondent is in no way liable to the claimants to pay any amount of compensation even if they are held entitled to. The 4th Respondent namely BMP has taken contention that the said accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle by the deceased himself who drove it at high speed and without observing traffic rules and regulations and therefore, the BMP is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants towards the death of the deceased. It has further contended that the deceased did not possess valid licence to drive the said vehicle and, therefore, the claimants are not entitled to seek any amount of compensation from it. Based on the above rival pleadings, the tribunal framed the following issues : (1) Whether petitioners prove that one k. R. Keshava Murthy succumbed to grievous injuries in Road Traffic Accident occurred on 19-2-1998 at about 7. 10 p. m. on Tank Bund road on account of manhole being kept open due to the negligent act on the part of the 3rd and 4th respondents ? (2) Whether petitioners are entitled to claim compensation from the respondents ? (3) What order or award ? ( 5. ) SUBSTANTIATING their case, the claimants got examined for them P. W. 1, the wife of the deceased and got marked the documents exhibits P1 to P15. The Respondents did not choose to get any witness examined for them nor did they get any document marked for them in support of their respective contentions. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence of the claimants, the Tribunal answered both issue Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the claimants and thereby allowed their claim petition in part and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 82,400/- in favour of all the claimant Nos. 1 to 4 together, with interest thereon at the rate of 7% p. a. from the date of commencement of recording evidence on behalf of the claimant i. e. from 19-1-2001. ( 6. ) AGGRIEVED by the said judgment and award, the claimants have preferred their MFA no. 1503/2006 and the 3rd Respondent therein namely BWSSB has preferred MFA No. 3337/2006 and 4th respondent-BMP has preferred mfa No. 295/2006. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for both the sides and perused the impugned judgment and award and also the entire material on record. 1503/2006 and the 3rd Respondent therein namely BWSSB has preferred MFA No. 3337/2006 and 4th respondent-BMP has preferred mfa No. 295/2006. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for both the sides and perused the impugned judgment and award and also the entire material on record. The points that arise for our determination in these appeals are : (i) Whether the Tribunal is justified in recording its finding that the said claim petition seeking compensation from the Respondent nos. 3 and 4 was maintainable under Section 166 of MV Act before the MACT despite the fact being that no vehicle belonging to the said respondents was involved in the said accident ? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was further justified in holding that the deceased himself contributed to the occurrence of the said accident to the extent of 80% and, therefore, the claimants are entitled to only 20% of the total loss of dependency to their family by reason of untimely death of the deceased in the said accident. (iii) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires to be enhanced to any extent ? ( 7. ) OUR findings on the above points are as under : 1) In the Affirmative 2) In the Negative 3) In the Affirmative. ( 8. ) POINT No. 1 : As to the maintainability of the claim petition before the MACT under the provisions of Section 166 of MV Act, Sri m. S. Narayan, learned counsel for BWSSB, the appellant in MFA No. 3337/2006 (the first respondent in MFA No. 1503/2006 and the 7th respondent in MFA No. 295/2006), vehemently contended that no vehicle belonging either to BWSSB or BMP was involved in the said accident, but it was due to the rach and negligent driving of the vehicle by the deceased himself and, therefore, the findings recorded by the Tribunal that the claim petition of the appellants was maintainable under section 166 of the MV Act, cannot be sustained in law and as such, the impugned judgment and award foisting liability on the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in the said claim petition jointly and severally deserves to be set aside. He has relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Smt. K. S. Chayadevi v. Corporation of the City of Bangalore, reported in ILR 2002 kar 901 : (2002 AIR-Kant HCR1048 ). 3 and 4 in the said claim petition jointly and severally deserves to be set aside. He has relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Smt. K. S. Chayadevi v. Corporation of the City of Bangalore, reported in ILR 2002 kar 901 : (2002 AIR-Kant HCR1048 ). Per contra, Sri A. K. Bhat, learned counsel for the claimants who are appellants in MFA No. 1503/2006 (and respondents in the other connected appeals), strongly contended that as provided under Section 165 of the MV Act, 1988, the Motor Accident claims Tribunals, have been established for the purpose of adjudicating upon the claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of or bodily injury to the persons arising out of the use of the motor vehicles and therefore, since the deceased died as a result of the accident which arose out of the use of the vehicle, the Tribunal has rightly held that the claim petition filed under section 166 of the said Act, was maintainable and therefore since the death of the deceased occurred as a result of the accident, which arose out of the use of the motor vehicle, the said claim petition filed under Section 166 of the MV Act, was maintainable. He further contended that the said accident was due to the negligence on the part of the BMP in maintaining the said road, in a condition fit for free movement of the vehicles and also on account of the negligence of BWSSB in digging the said manhole and keeping it unguarded, unfenced and without keeping any signboard showing its existence in the middle of the road and, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly recorded its findings in the impugned judgment and award that the said claim petition was maintainable. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the claimants has placed reliance on the following decisions: (1) 1998 ACJ 342 : ( AIR 1998 SC 640 ) (Union of India v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2) AIR 2002 SC 1301 : 2002 ACJ (Volume II) 721 (Union of India v. Bagwati Prasad (Dead ). ( 9. ) IT is not in dispute that on 19-2-1998 at about 7. Ltd., (2) AIR 2002 SC 1301 : 2002 ACJ (Volume II) 721 (Union of India v. Bagwati Prasad (Dead ). ( 9. ) IT is not in dispute that on 19-2-1998 at about 7. 00 p. m. the deceased was riding the said Kinetic Honda on Tank Bund Road in Bangalore City, which is a busy road, his vehicle fell into the manhole and consequently he was thrown on the road and sustained fatal injuries to his body as a result of which, he breathed his last on the next day itself despite the treatment given to him by taking him to the hospital immediately after the occurrence of the accident. Further, it is also not in dispute that the said manhole was dug by (BWSSB) in the middle of the road and the same was left unfenced and unguarded and no signboard was kept near the said manhole showing its existence in the middle of the road with a view to caution the users of the said road for plying their vehicles. ( 10. ) IT was the duty of the BMP to maintain each and every road within its limits in a condition fit to be used by the users of the motor vehicle/s on the roads and it was also the duty of the BMP to see that BWSSB had taken all the necessary care and caution in digging the said manhole in the middle of the road. Neither, BMP nor BWSSB has adduced any evidence either oral or documentary to show that the required steps were taken by them so that the drivers of the vehicle could notice the existence of the said manhole from a reasonable distance on either directions. The tribunal, on proper appreciation of the evidence of P. W. 1 and also that of the constable who was on duty nearby the said place of accident has held that the said manhole was left negligently unguarded, unfenced and no signboard was put nearby it with a view to caution the drivers of the vehicles moving on the said road as to the existence of the said manhole. In the case of Union of India and bagavathi Prasad (dead), reported in 2002 acj 721 : (ILR 2002 SC 1301) : (AIR 2002sc 1301)relied upon by the learned counsel for the claimants, Hon'ble Supreme Court, after considering its earlier decision in the case of Union of India v. India Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 1998 ACJ 342 : ( AIR 1998 SC 640 ) (SC) (which is also relied upon the learned counsel for the claimants) has observed at para 3 of its judgment that the claim for compensation on account of the accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle could be filed before the Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act not only against the owner or insurer of the motor vehicle but also against another joint tortfeasor concocted with the accident or against whom composite negligence is alleged. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court at para No. (3) in the said judgment reads as under : para 3. "the claim for compensation in respect of the accidents involving death or bodily injury to persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles as well as the insurance of the motor vehicles against the third party risk and the liability of the insurer are contained in Chapter VIII of the Motor Vehicles Act. The State Government has been empowered under Section 110 (1) of the Act to constitute one or more Motor Accident Claims Tribunals by notification in the Official Gazette. Section 110-A provides for filing an application for compensation and Section 110-B is the power of the Claims Tribunal to pass an award on receiving an application for compensation made under sub-section (1) of Section 110. The procedure and powers of the claims Tribunal are enumerated in Section 110-C of the Act. In the case of Union of India v. United India insurance Co. The procedure and powers of the claims Tribunal are enumerated in Section 110-C of the Act. In the case of Union of India v. United India insurance Co. Ltd., 1998 ACJ 342 : (AIR1998 SC 640), applications for compensation had been filed either by the injured passengers or the dependant of the deceased passengers travelling in the ill-fated motor vehicle both against the insurer of the motor vehicle as well as against the railway administration and one of the contentions which had been raised before this Court by the railway administration was whether a claim for compensation would at all be maintainable before the tribunal against other persons or agencies which are held to be guilty of composite negligence or are joint tortfeasors, and if the same arose out of the use of the motor vehicle. On consideration of different provisions of the motor Vehicles Act this Court ultimately came to hold that, "we hold that the claim for compensation is maintainable before the Tribunal against other persons or agencies which are held to be guilty of composite negligence or are joint tortfeasors, and if arising out of use of the motor vehicle. We hold that the Tribunal and the High Court were right in holding that an award could be passed against the railways if its negligence in relation to the same accident was also proved. " "the Court also came to hold that the views expressed by Gauhati, Orissa and Madras high Courts to the effect that no award can be passed against others except the owner/ driver or insurer of the motor vehicle are not correct, and on the other hand, the view taken by the Allahabad, Punjab and Haryana, gujarat, Kerala and Rajasthan High Courts to the effect that the claim lies before the tribunal even against another joint tortfeasor connected with the same accident or against whom composite negligence is alleged correct. We are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid conclusion of the Court in the aforesaid case. We are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid conclusion of the Court in the aforesaid case. " "the question that arises for consideration, therefore, is "whether an application filed before a Claims Tribunal for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death or bodily injury to persons arising out of the use of motor vehicle and the claim is made both against the insurer, owner and driver of the motor vehicle as well as the other joint tortfeasors, if a finding on hearing is reached that it is solely the negligence of the joint tortfeasor and not the driver of the motor vehicle then would the Tribunal loose the jurisdiction to award compensation against the joint tortfeasor. It is not disputed, and as has been already held by this Court in the case of union of India v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) that a claim for compensation on account of the accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle could be filed before a tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles act not only against the owner or insurer of the motor vehicle but also against another joint tortfeasor connected with the accident or against whom composite negligence is alleged. A combined reading of Ss. 110, 110-A which deal with the constitution of one or more Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and application for compensation arising out of an accident, as specified in sub-section (1) of s. 110 unequivocally indicates that Claims tribunal would have the jurisdiction to entertain application for compensation both by the persons injured or legal representatives of the deceased when the accident arose out of the use of motor vehicle". "the crucial expression conferring jurisdiction upon the Claims Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act is the accident arising out of use of motor vehicle, and therefore, if there has been a collision between the motor vehicle and Railway train then all those persons injured or died could make application for compensation before the Claims Tribunal not only against the owner, driver or insurer of the motor vehicle but also against the Railway Administration. " "once such an application is held to be maintainable and the Tribunal entertains such an application, if in course of enquiry the Tribunal comes to a finding that it is the other joint tortfeasor connected with the accident who was responsible and not the owner or driver of the motor vehicle then the Tribunal cannot be held to be denuded of its jurisdiction which it had initially. In other words, in such a case also the Motor Vehicle Claims tribunal would be entitled to award compensation against the other joint tortfeasor and in the case in hand, it would be fully justified to award compensation against the Railways administration if ultimately it is held that it was the sole negligence on the part of the railway Administration. " "in our considered opinion, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain application for claim of compensation in respect of an accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle depends essentially on the fact whether there had been any use of motor vehicle and once that is established the Tribunal's jurisdiction cannot be held to be ousted on a finding being arrived at a later point of time that it is the negligence of the other joint tortfeasor and not the negligence of the motor vehicle in question. " (Emphasis supplied by us) ( 11. ) THE same question that had arisen before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. United India Insurance co. Ltd., ( 1997 (8) SCC 683 : AIR 1998 SC 640 : 1998 ACJ 342 (8)) namely "whether the claim petition was maintainable under the motor Vehicles Act in a case, where the accident had occurred due entirely to the negligence of outside agency without the agency itself making use of any motor vehicle" was considered by this Court in the case of Smt. K. B. Jayadevi v. Corporation of the Bangalore city of Bangalore, reported in ILR 2002 kar 901 : (2002 AIR-Kant HCR 1048) (MFANo. 1386/1995 disposed of on 28-1-2002 ). In the said case, where the deceased died as a result of the motor vehicle accident that occurred due to failure on the part of the Corporation in keeping the road in good repair, it was held that no claim petition before the mact was maintainable. In the said case, where the deceased died as a result of the motor vehicle accident that occurred due to failure on the part of the Corporation in keeping the road in good repair, it was held that no claim petition before the mact was maintainable. However, as could be seen from the observations of the Hon'ble supreme Court in the said case of (Union of india v. Bhagwati Prasad (Dead) ( AIR 2002 sc 1301 : ACJ 2002 Vol. II page 721) which came to be decided on 7-3-2002 by the Bench of three Judges, wherein the Court affirmed its view in its earlier decision in Union of india v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (1998 acj 342) : ( AIR 1998 SC 640 ) as extracted supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly laid down that a claim for compensation on account of the accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle could be filed before the tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles act not only against the owner or insurer of the Motor Vehicle, but also against the joint tortfeasor connected with the accident or against whom composite negligence is alleged. It is quite clear that in the instant case, the claimants, being the legal representatives of the deceased K. R. Keshavamurthy who died as a result of the accident, that arose out of the use of the motor vehicle i. e. the Kinetic honda and the said accident occurred as a result of the negligence on the part of the BMP and also BWSSB. Therefore, applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the aforesaid cases to the facts of the instant case, we are of the opinion that the tribunal was quite justified in recording its finding that the said claim petition was maintainable. Therefore, applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the aforesaid cases to the facts of the instant case, we are of the opinion that the tribunal was quite justified in recording its finding that the said claim petition was maintainable. The decision of this Court in the case of Smt. K. S. Chaya Devi v. Corporation of the City of Bangalore, reported in ILR 2002 kar 901 : (2002 AIR - Kant HCR 1048) (decided on 28-1-2002) relied upon by the learned counsel for the BWSSB who is appellant in MFA No. 3337/2006 and Respondent in MFA No. 1503/2006 cannot be held ] to be valid in view of the decision of the Bench j of three Judges of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Bhagwathi prasad, ( AIR 2002 SC 1301 ) which came to be decided on 7-3-2002, wherein its earlie decision in the case of Union of India v. United india Insurance Co. Ltd. ( AIR 1998 SC 640 ), has been affirmed. Hence, we answer point no. 1 in the Affirmative and in favour of the claimants who are appellants in MFA No. 1503/2006 and Respondents in MFA No, 3337/2006 and MFA No. 295/2006. ( 12. ) POINT NO. 2 : This point pertains to the finding of the Tribunal that the deceased himself contributed to the extent of 80 % as to the occurrence of the said extent. Sri M. S. Narayan, learned counsel for the BWSSB, the appellant in MFA No. 3337/2006 Respondent in the other appeals) strongly contended that the evidence of P. W. 2, Police Constable who has been examined on behalf of the claimants themselves and also the documents Ex. p1 and ex. P2, the copies of FIR clearly establish that the deceased himself was responsible for the occurrence of the accident inasmuch as he drove the vehicle on the said road rashly and negligently and at high speed. He further contended that when all the other vehicles could notice the said manhole and could drive their vehicles avoiding the same, the very fact that only the vehicle of the deceased fell into the said manhole and consequently he was thrown on the road to a distance of about 43 away from the said manhole goes to show that the deceased was rash and negligent in driving the said vehicle. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimants (Appellants In MFA No. 1503/2006)and Respondents in the other appeals)strongly contended that the driver of the vehicle on a road like Tank Bund Road in bangalore City which is admittedly a busy road cannot be expected to notice the unfenced and unguarded manhole kept open in the middle of the road without putting even any signboard and therefore, the vehicle of the deceased fell at the said manhole and consequently he was thrown on the road to some distance, it could not be held that he was negligent in driving the said vehicle to any extent much less to the extent of 80% as held by the tribunal. He further submitted that the oral evidence of P. W. 2 constable and also FIR given by him as per Exs. P1 and P2 do not clearly establish that the deceased was negligent to any extent in riding the said vehicle. ( 13. ) AS could be seen from the evidence of p. W. 2, he has stated that on the said date and time of the accident, while he was on patrolling duty at Tank Bund Road, Kinetic Honda came from southern direction towards northern direction and there was a pot hole in the road and the said vehicle fell into the pit and the rider fell on the road and consequently sustained head injuries and then he sent the injured to the hospital in an auto-rickshaw. In his evidence, he has neither stated that the deceased drove his vehicle either rashly or negligently or at high-speed nor has he stated that the said accident was due to the negligence on the part of the deceased to any extent. Further, on careful reading of the cross-examination of this P. W. 2, it could be seen that he has denied the suggestion put to him by the learned counsel for the Respondents that the rider of the scooter was driving his scooter at high-speed. It could be seen further from the cross-examination that it is not even suggested to this witness that the deceased himself was negligent either in driving his said vehicle or in not noticing the manhole existing on the road. It could be seen further from the cross-examination that it is not even suggested to this witness that the deceased himself was negligent either in driving his said vehicle or in not noticing the manhole existing on the road. This being the evidence of p. W. 2, we have no alternative but to hold that the findings recorded by the Tribunal that the deceased himself was negligent to the extent of 80% for the occurrence of the said accident cannot be sustained in law. On the other hand, we are of the opinion that the said accident occurred as a result of negligence on the part of both BMP and BWSSB in not putting any fence to the said manhole and in not putting any signboard nearby it for cautioning drivers of the vehicle as to the existence of the said manhole. Merely because no other accident is reported to have occurred as a result of any vehicle falling in the said manhole, it cannot be held, as contended by the learned counsel for BMP and BWSSB that the deceased himself was negligent in driving his vehicle. Hence, we answer the point no. 2 in the 'negative' and against BMP and bwssb who are respondents in MFA No. 1503/2006. ( 14. ) POINT NO. 3. The learned counsel for the claimants strongly contended that the tribunal committed error in considering the income of the deceased only at Rs. 39,000/-p. a. in arriving at the total loss of dependency to the family of the deceased and it committed further error in deducting l/3rd of the said income towards personal expenses of the deceased despite the fact being that the deceased was maintaining the family consisting of himself and the claimant Nos. 1 to 4. He further submitted that the Tribunal committed another error in awarding interest on the amount of compensation from the date of commencement of the evidence on behalf of the claimants on the ground that the claimants went on seeking adjournment in the said case for commencing their evidence. The learned counsel for the claimant further contended that the Tribunal was not justified in awarding only a sum of Rs. 5,000/-towards loss to the estate of the deceased, rs. 20,000/- towards loss of love and affection and consortium and Rs. 10,000/- towards funeral expenses and, therefore, the compensation under these heads requires to be en hanced. ( 15. The learned counsel for the claimant further contended that the Tribunal was not justified in awarding only a sum of Rs. 5,000/-towards loss to the estate of the deceased, rs. 20,000/- towards loss of love and affection and consortium and Rs. 10,000/- towards funeral expenses and, therefore, the compensation under these heads requires to be en hanced. ( 15. ) PER contra, the learned counsel for bwssb (which is Respondent in MFA No. 1503/6 and appellant in the other appeal), strongly contended that the Tribunal committed error in accepting Ex. P9, the income-tax returns that came to be filed by the claimant no. 1, on 28-10-1998 the wife of the deceased after the death of the deceased with a view to substantiate her claim for higher amount of compensation and, therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in awarding compensation by 3 taking the annual income of the deceased at Rs. 39,000/- based on the said document. ( 16. ) AS rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the BWSSB, (for Respondent in mfa No. 1503/2006), Ex. P9 - the income-tax return was filed by the wife of the deceased on 28-10-1998 i. e. after the death of the deceased as a result of the said accident. However, as could be seen from Exhibit P9, the same was filed by her on 28-10-1998 in 3 respect of the assessment year 1997-98 which ended with 31-3-1998 in respect of the accounting year which ended with 31-3-1997 i.e. a year prior to the death of the deceased. Further, Ex. P10, the Balance sheet which was enclosed with Ex. P9 Return of Income reveals that the same was in respect of the accounting year ending with 31-3-1997. This being so, the contention of the learned counsel for BWSSB that Ex. P9 Return and Ex. P10, Statement of account accompanying the said returns came to be filed after the death of the deceased only to substantiate the claim of the Claimants for higher compensation cannot be accepted. Besides this, it is pertinent to note that the taxable income shown in the said returns is only Rs. 39,028. If the said documents were to have been created for the purpose of claiming higher compensation, the claimants could have shown more than the said income. Besides this, it is pertinent to note that the taxable income shown in the said returns is only Rs. 39,028. If the said documents were to have been created for the purpose of claiming higher compensation, the claimants could have shown more than the said income. Besides this, the minimum income of the claimant to be considered for determining the compensation under Section 163-A of the MV Act itself is Rs. 40,000/-p. a. The income of Rs. 39,000/- pa, which is taken by the Tribunal is less than the bare minimum which is to be awarded without any proof of negligence. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal ought to have taken the annual income of the deceased at rs. 40,000/-, which is the bare minimum to be taken. Further, the case of the claimants that the deceased was doing business in vegetables and was supporting the family consisting of himself and these claimant Nos. 1 to 4, from out of the income earned by him, from the said business is found established. Therefore, for supporting family of this size, the deceased was required to earn minimum of Rs. 3,500/-per month i. e. more than Rs. 40,000/ -. Therefore, we are of the opinion that it would be just and reasonable to take the income of the deceased as on the date of his death at Rs. 40,000/- PA which is the minimum to be taken even for awarding compensation under section 163-A of the MV Act. If this income is taken and l/3rd of the same is deducted to wards personal income of the deceased. the annual loss of income to the family of the deceased comes to Rs. 26,667/- which may be rounded to Rs. 26,700/ -. Further. it is not in dispute that the deceased was aged about 37 years as on the date of his death. By applying the ratio in ILR 2000 Kar 4416 : (2000air - Kant HCR 13), Gutam Khader v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., the proper multiplier to be chosen would be 15'. This being so, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the claimants, the Tribunal committed error in choosing the multiplier 14'. Since it is held that the deceased did not contribute to any extent to the occurrence of the said accident, the claimants would be entitled to this full amount towards the loss of dependency. This being so, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the claimants, the Tribunal committed error in choosing the multiplier 14'. Since it is held that the deceased did not contribute to any extent to the occurrence of the said accident, the claimants would be entitled to this full amount towards the loss of dependency. The claimant No. 1 Smt. Anitha, the wife of the deceased was aged about 28 years as on the date of the accident and death of the deceased and this fact is not disputed. Therefore, we are hereby award a sum of Rs. 25,000/-towards loss of consortium to this claimant. Claimant No. 2 Nithya, the daughter of the deceased was aged about 7 years as on the date of the death of the deceased. Therefore, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- is hereby awarded towards loss of love and affection to this claimant. The Tribunal has awarded interest on the amount of compensation from the date of commencement of evidence, but not from the date of petition on the ground that the claimants themselves went on seeking time for commencing their evidence. This approach of the tribunal cannot be accepted. The Tribunal ought to have awarded interest on the amount of compensation from the date of petition itself. Therefore, we hereby award interest on the entire amount of compensation from the date of petition itself. However, the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is undisturbed. ( 17. ) FOR the reasons aforesaid, we hereby dismiss MFA No. 3337/2006 filed by BWSSB and MFA No. 295/2006 filed by BMP, the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 respectively in MVC no. 3847/98 and we hereby allow mfa No. 1503/2006 filed by the claimants in part. With the result, the Appellant Nos., 1 to 6 herein being the claimants in the said case shall be entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 4,35,500/-with interest thereon at the rate of 7% p. a. from the date of petition till the date of actual payment. ( 18. ) THE impugned judgment and Award of the Tribunal insofar as it relates to apportionment of compensation amongst the appellant-claimants and the depositing of respective shares into the Fixed Deposit account is left undisturbed. The same shall be applied in respect of the enhanced amount of compensation. ( 18. ) THE impugned judgment and Award of the Tribunal insofar as it relates to apportionment of compensation amongst the appellant-claimants and the depositing of respective shares into the Fixed Deposit account is left undisturbed. The same shall be applied in respect of the enhanced amount of compensation. Further, the impugned judgment and award insofar as it relates to the liability of the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 therein, to pay compensation to the claimants is also left undisturbed. In other words, both the Respondents 3 and 4 therein namely BWSSB and BMP are liable to pay the aforesaid amount of compensation to the claimants therein jointly and severally. Original of this judgment shall be placed in MFA No. 1503/2006 and the copy thereof shall be placed in each of other two appeals. Order accordingly.