Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 761 (KAR)

Shamala v. Chaithanya Kumar

2013-07-03

B.MANOHAR, N.K.PATIL

body2013
Judgment : 1. This appeal by the appellants-claimants is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 15/07/2010 passed in MVC No.7452/2008 by the VI Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru City, (hereinafter referred to as ' Tribunal' for short), for enhancement of compensation, on the ground that a sum of Rs.3,69,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as compensation under different heads with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization, as against the claim of Rs.20,00,000/-, on account of the death the deceased Sri. Ravindranath. M.N, in the road traffic accident is inadequate. 2. In brief, the facts of the case are: The appellants are the wife, daughter and parents of the deceased Sri. Ravindranath M.N. They filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation against the respondents, on account of the death of the deceased in the accident, contending that, on 25.8.2008 at about 9.30 p.m. when the deceased was riding his TVS 50 bearing Reg.No.KA.05.H.3143 on Bangalore-Kanakapura road, near Nelaguli gate, Uttarahalli, the driver of the lorry bearing Reg.No.KA.51.1925 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased vehicle. Due to which, he fell down and was dragged by the said lorry up to 75 feet on the road, as a result, he succumbed to the injuries sustained on the spot. 3. It is the further case of the appellants that, the deceased was aged about 50 years, hale and healthy prior to the accident, working as Archak in several temples and getting the income of Rs.10,000/- per month and looking after the welfare of the family. Due to his untimely death, appellants have lost their bread earner and they suffered both financial and social insecurity.. 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 claim petition in part and awarded the compensation of Rs.3,69,000/- under different heads with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization. Being dis-satisfied with the 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 appearing for 2nd respondent. 6. Being dis-satisfied with the 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 appearing for 2nd respondent. 6. The principal submission canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellants is that, the deceased was an Archak by profession and performing poojas in two temples and getting the income of Rs.10,000/-per month and he was hale and healthy prior to the accident and looking after the welfare of the family. Further he submits that, due to his untimely death, appellant No.1 has lost her husband, appellant No.2 has lost her loving father and appellants 3 and 4 have lost their son who was their future hopes and security. But, the Tribunal without taking these aspects of the matter into consideration, has erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-per month without any justification, which is on lower side and it needs to be enhanced. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be modified by enhancing just and reasonable compensation towards loss of dependency. 7. As against this, learned counsel for the Insurer, inter-alia, contended and substantiated that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file and therefore, it does not call for interference. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for 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 reasonable? 9. It could be seen from the materials available on record that, the occurrence of the accident and the resultant death of the deceased are not in dispute. It is the case of the appellants that deceased was aged about 50 years, working as Archak in two temples and getting the income of Rs.10,000/-per month. But they have not produced any documents or examined the Administrators or Trustees of those temples to prove his income. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-per month, which is on lower side and it needs to be modified. But they have not produced any documents or examined the Administrators or Trustees of those temples to prove his income. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-per month, which is on lower side and it needs to be modified. Having regard to the age, occupation of the deceased and the year of the accident, we re-assess his income at Rs.4,500/- per month. Out of which, if 1/3rd (Rs.1,500/-) is deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased since the daughter was major and dependants are only wife and parents instead of 1/4th as done by the Tribunal, his net income comes to Rs.3,000/- per month. The proper multiplier applicable is 13' instead of 12' adopted by the Tribunal, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case, reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 since deceased was aged about 50 years. Therefore, we re-determine the loss of dependency at Rs.4,68,000/- (Rs.3,000/- x 12 x 13) instead of Rs.3,24,000/- awarded by the Tribunal and accordingly, it is awarded. However, a sum of Rs.45,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards conventional heads, such as, loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, loss of estate and transportation and funeral expenses is just and proper and therefore, it does not call for interference. In all, the appellants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.5,13,000/- instead of Rs.3,69,000/-as awarded by the Tribunal. There would be an enhancement of Rs.1,44,000/-with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization. 10. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants is allowed in part and the impugned judgment and award dated 15/07/2010 passed in MVC No.7452/2008 by the VI Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru City, is hereby modified, awarding the compensation of Rs.1,44,000/-with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization, in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The second respondent -Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.1,44,000/-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. The second respondent -Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.1,44,000/-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.1,44,000/-, a sum of Rs.50,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank, in the name of the appellant No. 1 for a period of ten years and renewable by another ten years, with liberty reserved to her to withdraw the interest accrued on it, periodically. A sum of Rs.50,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized or Scheduled bank, in the name of the appellant No.4 for a period of ten years and renewable by another five years, with liberty to her to withdraw the interest accrued on it, periodically. The remaining sum of Rs.44,000/-with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the appellant Nos.1, 3 and 4 in equal proportion, immediately.. Draw the award, accordingly.