Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 138 (KAR)

Byyamma v. R. Babu

2010-02-03

B.SREENIVASE GOWDA, N.K.PATIL

body2010
Judgment :- N.K. Patil, J. This appeal by the claimants is directed against the judgment and award dated 21st April 2005, passed in M.V.C.No.7/2000, on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) & JMFC & Member Additional. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chickballapur, (for short, ‘Tribunal’) for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs.2,97,000/- awarded in favour of the claimants as against their claim for Rs.18.00 lakhs, is inadequate. 2. The first appellant is the wife, second appellant is son and third appellant is the father of deceased late Sri. N. Krishnamurthy, who died in the road traffic accident that occurred at about 3:30 P.M., on 13.11.1999. It is the case of appellants that the deceased was aged about 50 years and an agriculturist, milk vendor and also doing sericulture. He was owning wet net and was a progressive agriculturist, growing sugarcane, paddy, aracanut and other crops. He was the only bread winner of the family. It is their further case that, on account of the death of the deceased, they have lost the sole bread winner of the family and are in great distress. 3. On account of the death of the deceased, the appellants filed the claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation of a sum of Rs.18.00 lakhs against the respondents. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 21st April 2005. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, awarding a sum of Rs.2,97,000/- with 6% interest from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants are in appeal before this Court, seeking enhancement of compensation. 4. We have heard learned counsel for appellants and learned counsel for Insurance Company. 5. After careful perusal of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and after critical evaluation of the original records available on file, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal is justified in awarding a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate, and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of expectancy. Thereafter, it does not call for interference. 6. Thereafter, it does not call for interference. 6. However, so far as the compensation of Rs.2,64,000/- awarded towards loss of dependency is concerned, we are of the opinion that the same is not justifiable and is on the lower side. The Tribunal has erred in taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- which is on the lower side. The deceased was a progressive agriculturist, growing commercial crops and doing sericulture apart from milk vending business. Therefore, we presume that he should been earning more than Rs.3,000/- per month. Taking all these factors into consideration, we re-assess the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/-, to meet the ends of justice. After deducting 1/3rd from the said income, towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased, the net income comes to Rs.2,667/- per month. Having regard to the age of the deceased, being 50 years, the appropriate multiplier is ‘13’ as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sarla Verma’s case reported in 2009 ACJ P.1298. Accordingly, the loss of dependency works out to Rs.4,16,052/- (i.e. Rs.2,667/- x 12 x ‘13’) as against Rs.2,64,000/- awarded by Tribunal, taking monthly income at Rs.3,000/- and adopting multiplier of ’11’. 7. The Tribunal also erred in awarding only a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. The same is inadequate. Accordingly, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we award a sum of Rs.10,000/-under the said head as against Rs.3,000/- awarded by Tribunal. 8. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the appeal filed by appellants is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 21st April 2005, passed in M.V.C.No,7/2000, on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) & JMFC & Member Additional. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chickballapur, is hereby modified, awarding a sum of Rs.4,56,052/- as against Rs.2,97,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at 6% per annum on the enhanced sum, from the date of petition till the date of realization. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chickballapur, is hereby modified, awarding a sum of Rs.4,56,052/- as against Rs.2,97,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at 6% per annum on the enhanced sum, from the date of petition till the date of realization. The break-up is as follows: Towards Loss of Dependency Rs.4,16,052/-Towards Loss of love and affection Rs.10,000/- Towards Loss of estate & loss of expectancy Rs.10,000/- Towards transportation of dead body and funeeral expenses Rs.10,000 Towards loss of consortium Rs.10,000/- Total Rs.4,56,052/-The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.1,59,052/- (rounded off to Rs.1,59,050/-), with interest thereon at 6% per annum, within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment and award. Immediately on such deposit by the Insurance Company, out of the enhanced compensation of Rs.1,59,050/-, a sum of Rs.50,000/-with proportionate interest shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in the name of each of appellants 1 and 3, i.e. the wife and father of the deceased, in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank, for a period of five years and renewable by another five years with liberty reserved to them to withdraw the periodical interest on the said fixed deposit. The remaining sum of Rs.59,050/-with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of all the three appellants, in equal proportion. Office to draw award, accordingly.