Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1011 (KAR)

M. Anantha v. Nagaraju

2010-09-20

K.GOVINDARAJULU, N.K.PATIL

body2010
Judgment :- N.K. Patil, J. Admit. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 12.4.2005 passed in M.V.C.No.32/2000 on the file of the Additional Judge (Sr.Dn.) and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandya, (‘Tribunal’ for brevity), on the ground that, the compensation of Rs.7,08,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, is inadequate and requires enhancement. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, Appellant No.1 is the husband and appellant No.2 is the daughter of one Smt. K. Sathya Prema, who died in the road traffic accident that occurred on 9.10.1999 at about 6.16 p.m. near Gejjalagere Village on Mysore-Bangalore Road, due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing No.KA-06/A-9998 by its driver – respondent No.1, which dashed against a lorry bearing No.KA-02/A-1866 after over taking a van. Due to the untimely death of said K. Sathya Prema, the first appellant having lost the company of wife at the age of 36 years and the second appellant having lost the love and affection of his mother at a tender age, the claimants were constrained to file the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.24,50,000/- with interest at 18% per annum against the respondents. 3. The Tribunal, after hearing the learned counsel on both sides and after considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, allowed the claim petition in part and awarded compensation of Rs.7,08,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants have presented this appeal on the ground that no compensation is awarded under the head loss of estate and that the compensation awarded towards loss of dependency is inadequate and the same requires enhancement by modifying the judgment and award of the Tribunal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the insurers. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants at the outset submitted that, the deceased was aged about 35 years as on the date of the accident and was working as Head-Mistress in a Government High School drawing a salary of Rs.7,990/- per month. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the insurers. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants at the outset submitted that, the deceased was aged about 35 years as on the date of the accident and was working as Head-Mistress in a Government High School drawing a salary of Rs.7,990/- per month. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), the Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the future prospects of the deceased. The Tribunal has erred in not adding 50% to the last gross income towards future prospectus of the deceased while calculating the loss of dependency. Therefore, she sought for modification of the judgment and award of the Tribunal by determining just and reasonable compensation under the head loss of dependency and also under the head loss of estate. 6. As against this, the learned counsel appearing for the third and the sixth respondents fairly submitted that future prospects of the deceased may be taken into consideration and the quantum of compensation may be re-considered in accordance with law and in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court referred to above. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, the only point that arises for consideration in the instant appeal is. “Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?” 8. The occurrence of the accident and the death of the deceased in the said road traffic accident are not in dispute. Further the fact that the deceased was aged about 35 years and working as Head-Mistress in a Government School drawing a salary of Rs.7,990/- per month is also not in dispute. In the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma cited supra, 50% of the gross salary of the deceased should be taken towards future prospects of the deceased. Hence, 50% of the gross salary of the deceased works out to Rs.3,995/-. If the same is added to the last gross salary, it works to Rs.7990/- + Rs.3,995/- = Rs.11,985/- per month or Rs.1,43,820/- per annum. Hence, 50% of the gross salary of the deceased works out to Rs.3,995/-. If the same is added to the last gross salary, it works to Rs.7990/- + Rs.3,995/- = Rs.11,985/- per month or Rs.1,43,820/- per annum. Out of this, if Rs.17,764/- is deducted towards income tax as per the relevant assessment year, the net income comes to Rs.1,26,056/- per annum. Out of this, if 1/3rd is deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, it works out to Rs.84,037/-. The age of the husband of the deceased was 36 years. Appropriate multiplier applicable is ‘15’. Accordingly, the loss of dependency works out to Rs.12,60,555/- (Rs.84,037x15). 9. Further, having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it fit to award Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.10,000/-towards loss of consortium, Rs.10,000/- towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection. In all, the appellants are entitled to Rs.13,00,555/- as against Rs.7,08,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation of Rs.5,92,555/- shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization. 10. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 12.4.2005 passed in M.V.C.No.32/2000 on the file of the Additional Judge (Sr.Dn.) and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandya, is hereby modified by awarding compensation of Rs.13,00,555/- as against Rs.7,08,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The third respondent – Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. On such deposit, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with proportionate accrued interest shall be kept in fixed deposit in the name of the first appellant in any nationalized or scheduled bank initially for a period of 5 years and renewable for further period of 5 years. The first appellant is entitled to withdraw the interest periodically. Out of the remaining amount, a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be kept in fixed deposit in the name of the second appellant in any nationalized or schedule bank till he attains majority. The first appellant is entitled to withdraw the interest periodically, for the welfare of the second appellant. Further, the remaining amount of Rs.92,555/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the first appellant immediately on such deposit by the Insurance Company. The first appellant is entitled to withdraw the interest periodically, for the welfare of the second appellant. Further, the remaining amount of Rs.92,555/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the first appellant immediately on such deposit by the Insurance Company. Office is directed to draw the award.