Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1149 (KAR)

N. M. Rathnamma v. C. Krishnan

2011-11-29

N.K.PATIL, V.SURI APPA RAO

body2011
JUDGMENT N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the claimants is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 9.11.2006 passed in M.V.C. No. 916 of 1997 on the file of the Fast Track Court-IV and M.A.C.T., Court of Small Causes, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore (for short, 'the Tribunal'). The Tribunal by its impugned judgment and award awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 12,98,000 with interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization on account of death of deceased B.K. Ramaiah in a road accident. The quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal being inadequate and requiring enhancement, the appellants have presented this appeal. The brief facts of the case are that appellant No. 1 is the wife, appellant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the children of deceased B.K. Ramaiah. They have filed claim petition under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs. 48,41,500 on account of death of deceased Ramaiah in road accident that occurred on 15.4.1997, while he was carrying 46 bags of potato grown in his land for sale at Madras in a mini lorry bearing registration No. TN 09-F 3040 and was accompanying the goods along with others. When the vehicle was proceeding to Madras on NH 4 at about 6 a.m., there was head-on collision between the mini lorry in which the deceased was travelling and Ashok Leyland platform truck bearing registration No. TNG 9969. Due to the impact, B.K. Ramaiah died on the spot. 2. It is the case of appellants-claimants that deceased Ramaiah was a leading practising advocate at Hoskote and Bangalore courts and he was also a very progressive agriculturist owning 7 acres of land and coconut garden. Due to the untimely death of the deceased, the appellants have also lost their social and economic security. The deceased being the sole bread-earner of the family, the appellants have lost the social and financial security. As the appellants were all students and prosecuting their studies, they contend that they do not have any knowledge about agriculture and their life has been jeopardized. It is the case of the appellants that the deceased was getting substantial income from his profession as advocate as well as from agriculture totally amounting to Rs. As the appellants were all students and prosecuting their studies, they contend that they do not have any knowledge about agriculture and their life has been jeopardized. It is the case of the appellants that the deceased was getting substantial income from his profession as advocate as well as from agriculture totally amounting to Rs. 40,000 p.m. It is further case of the appellants that they have spent reasonable amount for transportation and funeral expenses also. Taking these factors, they have filed claim petition against the respondents. Said matter had come up for consideration before Claims Tribunal. The Claims Tribunal in turn, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and other material on file, assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 12,000 per month and deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, i.e., Rs. 4,000 and income is taken at Rs. 8,000 per month and by applying multiplier of 13', a sum of Rs. 12,48,000 is awarded under the head loss of dependency and Rs. 50,000 under the conventional heads. In all, a sum of Rs. 12,98,000 is awarded as compensation by the Tribunal. Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants have presented this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. The grounds urged by the appellants in the instant appeal are that the Tribunal has committed an error in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 12,000 p.m. which is on the lower side and the Tribunal ought to have taken at least income of the deceased at Rs. 20,000 from his profession as advocate as well as agriculture and awarded reasonable compensation towards loss of dependency. Therefore, he submits that the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents inter alia substantiated the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and contended that the Tribunal after due consideration of oral and documentary evidence has awarded just compensation and hence interference by this court is not called for. However, he fairly submits that having regard to the avocation of the deceased, i.e., his legal profession and agricultural income, this court can take judicial note and reassess the income of the deceased and reasonable and appropriate order may be passed in accordance with law. 5. However, he fairly submits that having regard to the avocation of the deceased, i.e., his legal profession and agricultural income, this court can take judicial note and reassess the income of the deceased and reasonable and appropriate order may be passed in accordance with law. 5. After careful consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties and after perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is: Whether the quantum of compensation awarded is just and reasonable? The occurrence of accident and the resultant death of the deceased are not in dispute. Further, it is not in dispute that deceased was aged about 47 years and was an advocate by profession. The deceased was also having agricultural income from his 7 acres of land and coconut garden. He was a progressive agriculturist and used to sell the produce grown in his land along with others and while he was on his way to sell potatoes grown in his field at Madras, he met with an accident and succumbed to the injuries. The Tribunal has observed that the deceased might have been getting net income of Rs. 10,000 p.m. from his legal profession after excluding miscellaneous expenses and as the deceased was also an agriculturist, apart from his profession, he might be getting income of Rs. 2,000 from agriculture. But, it is the case of the appellants that the deceased was getting Rs. 15,000 from profession and Rs. 10,000 from agriculture. But, the appellants have not produced any credible documents to show that the deceased was getting Rs. 15,000 from his profession nor they have produced any document to show that he was an income tax assessee or books of account to establish that deceased was getting income of Rs. 15,000 per month. Taking the above aspects into consideration and as the accident has occurred in the year 1997, we can safely assess the income of the deceased at Rs. 15,000 per month to meet the ends of justice and to safeguard the interest of the appellants and respondents. If 1/3rd is deducted for personal expenses of the deceased, i.e., Rs. 5,000, the net income would be Rs. 10,000 per month. Deceased was aged about 47 years and hence the appropriate multiplier is 13'. Accordingly, we re-determine the loss of dependency at Rs. 15,60,000. If 1/3rd is deducted for personal expenses of the deceased, i.e., Rs. 5,000, the net income would be Rs. 10,000 per month. Deceased was aged about 47 years and hence the appropriate multiplier is 13'. Accordingly, we re-determine the loss of dependency at Rs. 15,60,000. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it fit to award Rs. 45,000 under the conventional heads, viz., loss of consortium, loss to estate, loss of love and affection and transportation and funeral expenses. In all, the appellants are entitled for total compensation of Rs. 16,05,000 as against Rs. 12,98,000 awarded by Claims Tribunal. Hence, there will be enhanced compensation of Rs. 3,07,000 with 6 per cent interest. 6. For the foregoing reasons, the instant appeal filed by the appellants is allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 9.11.2006 passed by Claims Tribunal in M.V.C. No. 916 of 1997 is hereby modified awarding compensation of Rs. 3,07,000 with 6 per cent interest from the date of petition till realization, in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 7. The respondent Nos. 2 and 5 are directed to deposit enhanced compensation of Rs. 3,07,000 with interest in equal proportions within a period of three weeks from the date of copy of the award. 8. Out of the enhanced compensation of Rs. 3,07,000, Rs. 2,00,000 with proportionate interest shall be invested in any nationalised or scheduled bank in the name of appellant No. 1 for a period of 5 years renewable by five years. Appellant No. 1 is also entitled to withdraw interest periodically. The remaining sum of Rs. 1,07,000 with the accrued interest shall be released equally in favour of appellant Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 immediately after deposit of the said amount by respondent Nos. 2 and 5. 9. Office to draw award accordingly. 10. Appeal allowed.