Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1255 (KAR)

Narayanaswamy v. National Insurance Co. , Ltd.

2013-11-05

N.K.PATIL, R.B.BUDIHAL

body2013
JUDGMENT N.K. Patil, J. 1. This appeal by the claimants is directed against the judgment and award dated 4th October 2010, passed in MVC No.5423/2009, by the VIII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-V, Bangalore City, (for short, 'Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs.3,40,000/- awarded in favour of the claimants as against their claim for Rs.25,00,000/-, is inadequate. 2. The facts in brief are that, the claimants are the parents of deceased Sathish Kumar. They filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that at about 05:00 P.M, on 09-07-2009, when the deceased Sathish Kumar was moving towards his village through bicycle, near Chikkacheemanahalli gate, he met with an accident on account of rash and negligent riding by the rider of Motor cycle bearing Registration No.KA-43/H-5477, a TVS Apachi. Due to the impact, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and immediately, he was taken to Government Hospital, Devanahalli, where first-aid was given and thereafter, he was referred to Sushrusha Nursing Home, Yelahanka where he took treatment as an in-patient and thereafter he was referred to NIMHANs, but, unfortunately, he succumbed to the said injuries, on the was to NIMHANs Hospital on 15-07- 2009 after about seven days. 3. It is the case of the appellants that, the deceased was aged about 16 years and studying SSLC at Vishwanathapura Government High School and also assisting his father in agricultural operations and was hale and healthy prior to the accident. On account of the untimely death of the deceased late Sathish Kumar, the claimants/appellants/parents have lost the love and affection, social and moral support apart from financial security and therefore, they have to be compensated reasonably. 4. On account of the death of the deceased, the appellants filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, seeking compensation against the respondents. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 4th October, 2010. 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.3,40,000/- under different heads, with 6% interest per annum, from the date of petition till the date of payment. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants are in appeal before this Court, seeking enhancement of compensation. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants are in appeal before this Court, seeking enhancement of compensation. 5. We have gone through the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal and heard learned counsel appearing for appellants and learned counsel appearing for Insurer, for quite some time. 6. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for appellants at the outset is that, the Tribunal grossly erred in awarding only a sum of Rs.2,70,000/- towards loss of dependency, Rs.40,000/- towards conventional heads, Rs.30,000/- towards medical expenses, in all, Rs.3,40,000/- for the death of the deceased Sathish Kumar in the road traffic accident as against their claim for Rs.25.00 lakhs. Further, she submitted that, the Tribunal also erred in not assessing the reasonable income of the deceased and what is assessed is on the lower side, for the reason that the deceased was aged about 16 years and studying SSLC in the Government High School and also assisting his father in agricultural operations. Therefore, the income of the deceased could have been assessed at least at Rs.4,000/- per month, to meet the ends of justice as the parents have lost their only son. Therefore, she submitted that reasonable income may be reassessed and reasonable compensation be awarded towards loss of dependency as also towards conventional heads and also medical expenses, by modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal. 7. Respondent No.1 - Insurer is served and un- represented. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, and after careful perusal of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the only point that arise for our consideration in this appeal is, Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal is just and reasonable? The undisputed facts of the case are the occurrence of accident and the resultant death of the deceased Sathish Kumar. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was aged about 16 years and studying SSLC and also assisting his father in agricultural operations after his School hours. He was hale and healthy and the only son to his parents, who were aged about 45 years and 40 years as on the date of accident. After going through the reasoning given by Tribunal, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal is justified in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-. He was hale and healthy and the only son to his parents, who were aged about 45 years and 40 years as on the date of accident. After going through the reasoning given by Tribunal, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal is justified in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-. Having regard to the age, avocation and the year of accident, the same is just and proper and we accept the same. Having regard to the number of dependents being two and since the deceased was a bachelor, the Tribunal is also justified in deducting 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased. Accordingly, If 50% (i.e. Rs.1,500/-) is deducted from Rs.3,000/- towards his personal expenses, the net income would be Rs.1,500/- per month. The Tribunal is further justified in applying the multiplier of 15', considering the age of the younger parent, i.e. mother who was aged about 40 years, as per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case ( 2009 ACJ 1298 ). Thus, the compensation of Rs.2,70,000/- (i.e. Rs.1,500/-x 12 x'15') awarded by Tribunal towards loss of dependency is just and proper and does not call for interference. 9. However, the Tribunal has erred in awarding only a sum of Rs.40,000/-towards conventional heads. The same is on the lower side. But, the Tribunal is justified in awarding a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs.10,000/-towards loss of estate. But so far as a sum of Rs.5,000/- awarded towards transportation of dead body is concerned, we are of the view that the same is a bit on the lower side, for the reason that the body of deceased was shifted from NIMHANs to Devanahalli and towards the same, the appellants must have spent reasonable sum towards transportation of dead body by taxi. Therefore, we deem it fit and proper to award a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards transportation of dead body as against Rs.5,000/-awarded by Tribunal. 10. Further, it can be seen that the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of 30,000/-towards medical expenses and other incidental expenses. It can be seen that the appellants have produced medical bills amounting to a sum of Rs.22,835/- and the deceased was admitted on 09-07-2009 and he succumbed to the accidental injuries on 15-07-2009 after about six days and was being shifted from one place to another. It can be seen that the appellants have produced medical bills amounting to a sum of Rs.22,835/- and the deceased was admitted on 09-07-2009 and he succumbed to the accidental injuries on 15-07-2009 after about six days and was being shifted from one place to another. During this period, the appellants would have spent reasonable sum towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges apart from medical expenses and other incidental expenses. Therefore, we deem it fit and proper to award a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards medical expenses including conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges as against Rs.30,000/-awarded by Tribunal under the said head. Thus the total compensation to which the appellants would be entitled to is, Rs.3,55,000/- as against 3,40,000/-awarded by Tribunal, with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 11. 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 4th October 2010, passed in MVC No.5423/2009, by the VIII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-V, Bangalore City, is hereby modified, awarding a sum of Rs.3,55,000/- as against Rs.3,40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at 6% per annum on the enhanced sum, from the date of petition till the date of realization. Thus, there would be enhancement of compensation by a sum of Rs.15,000/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The first respondent - Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.15,000/-, with interest thereon at 6% per annum, within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. Immediately on such deposit by the Insurance Company, the entire sum shall be released in favour of the second appellant-mother of the deceased, immediately Office to draw award, accordingly.