Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 744 (KAR)

Hemavathi v. Tanveer Pasha

2013-07-01

B.MANOHAR, N.K.PATIL

body2013
Judgment : 1. This appeal by the claimants-appellants is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 18/11/2010 passed in MVC No.51/2009 by the Civil Judge(Sr.Dn) and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Maddur, (hereinafter referred to as ' Tribunal' for short), for enhancement of compensation, on the ground that, a sum of Rs.12,86,444/-awarded by the Tribunal under different heads with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till payment, on account of the death the deceased Sri. Ranganath, in the road traffic accident, is inadequate. 2. In brief, the facts of the case are: The appellant No.1 is the wife and appellant No. 2 is the daughter of the deceased Sri. Ranganath. They filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation of Rs.45,00,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased in the road traffic accident, contending that, on 6.12.2008 the deceased who was working as Police Head Constable, Maddur Police station has been engaged to night beat duty at Beat-4 area allotted by PSI, Maddur and doing his duty in and around Shivpura, Maddur town along with one Chikkaputtaiah and when he reached near Basaveswara Theatre on Bangalore Mysore Highway at Koppa Cross road, at that time, Sub-Inspector of Police and his staff colleagues came to check the duty of Ranganath and Chikkaputtaiah in a official jeep No.KA.11.G.140 and enquiring and discussing about their duty at about 3.15 a.m., at that time, the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP.02.V5054 came in a rash and negligent manner from Bangalore side and dashed against the Jeep and rolled over said Eanganath and Chikkaputtaiah and caused the accident. Due to which, deceased and Chikkaputtaiah sustained injuries and died on the way to Hospital. 3. It is the further case of the appellants that, deceased was aged about 48 years, hale and healthy prior to the accident, working as Police Head Constable and drawing the salary of Rs.10,465/- per month and looking after the welfare of the family and due to his untimely death they suffered both socially and financially, as they have lost their earning member. 4. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. 4. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and other material available on file, has allowed the said claim petition in part and awarded the compensation of Rs.12,86,444/- under different heads with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till payment. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants have presented this appeal, for enhancement of compensation. 5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned counsel for 2nd respondent-Insurer. 6. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that, the Tribunal has erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards loss of dependency and what is awarded is inadequate and it requires to be enhanced. To substantiate the said submission, he submitted that, deceased was aged bout 48 years, working as Police Head constable and drawing he salary of Rs.10,465/- per month as per Ex.P6-salary certificate for the month of November 2008. Further, he submits that the appellants are entitled for another 30% towards future prospects in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 , since he has got a stable job and 1/3rd has to be deducted towards his personal expenses instead of 1/4th as done by the Tribunal. Therefore, he submitted that, the judgment and award is liable to be modified. 7. As against this, learned counsel appearing for Insurer, inter alia, contended and substantiated that, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file and therefore, it does not call for interference. However, in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court, another 30% is to be added towards future prospects and 1/3rd has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased as submitted by the learned counsel for appellants and therefore, the compensation towards loss of dependency has to be re- determined in accordance with law. 8. However, in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court, another 30% is to be added towards future prospects and 1/3rd has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased as submitted by the learned counsel for appellants and therefore, the compensation towards loss of dependency has to be re- determined in accordance with law. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and after careful perusal of the material available on record at threadbare, including the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the only point that arises for our consideration is : Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper? 9. The occurrence of the accident and the resultant death of the deceased are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that, deceased was aged about 48 years, working as Police Head constable and drawing the salary of Rs.10,465/-per month as per Ex.P6 and we accept the same. As the deceased was aged about 48 years at the time of his death and he had a permanent job, appellants are entitled for future income of the deceased at 30% of the net income drawn by the deceased as on the date of his death, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case, wherein, it is held at para-11 that, 30% of actual salary is to be added to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job. 30% of Rs.10.465/- works out to Rs.3,139/- and if the same is added to Rs.10,465/-, his total income comes to Rs.13,604/- per month. Out of which, if a sum of Rs.150/- is deducted towards professional tax, the remaining amount comes to Rs.13,454/- per month. Out of which, if 1/3rd (Rs.4,484/-) is deducted towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased, his net income comes to Rs.8,970/-per month. The appropriate Multiplier applicable is 13', since the deceased was aged about 48 years at the time of death as rightly adopted by the Tribunal. Therefore, we re-determine the loss of dependency at Rs.13,99,320/- (Rs.8,970/- x 12 x 13) instead of Rs.12,24,444/-awarded by the Tribunal and accordingly, it is awarded. 10. The appropriate Multiplier applicable is 13', since the deceased was aged about 48 years at the time of death as rightly adopted by the Tribunal. Therefore, we re-determine the loss of dependency at Rs.13,99,320/- (Rs.8,970/- x 12 x 13) instead of Rs.12,24,444/-awarded by the Tribunal and accordingly, it is awarded. 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, we award a sum of Rs.45,000/- towards conventional heads i.e. towards loss of consortium, towards loss of estate, towards loss of love and affection and towards transportation and funeral expenses. In all, the appellants are entitled for the total compensation of Rs.14,44,320/- instead of Rs.12,86,444/-. There would be an enhancement of compensation of Rs.1,57,876/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realisation. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 18/11/2010 passed in MVC No.51/2009 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Maddur, is hereby modified, awarding the compensation of Rs.14,44,320/- instead of Rs.12,86,444/-awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation comes to Rs.1,57,876/-, with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization. The Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.1,57,876/-with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Immediately on such deposit by the Insurer, out of the enhanced compensation of Rs.1,57,876/-, a sum of Rs.50,000/-with proportionate interest shall be invested in the Fixed Deposit in the names of each of the appellant Nos.1 and 2 in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank, for a period of ten years, renewable by another ten years, with liberty reserved to them to withdraw the interest accrued on it, periodically. The remaining sum of Rs.57,876/-with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the appellant Nos.1 and 2 in equal proportion immediately. Draw the award, accordingly.