Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 114 (KAR)

Ejaj Pasha @ Syed Munawar v. Babu

2014-02-04

N.K.PATIL, RATHNAKALA

body2014
JUDGMENT : Rathnakala, J. This appeal is filed against the judgment and award dated 21st December, 2011 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mysore (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in M.V.C. No. 15/2011, being aggrieved by the inadequate quantum of compensation awarded in favour of the appellants, who are the parents of the deceased Rizwan. The Appellants herein filed Claim Petition before the Tribunal u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Their case before the Tribunal was that, on 13.9.2010 at 6.00 p.m., their deceased son Rizwan was proceeding as a pillion rider in the scooter bearing registration No. KA-02/S-8101. The rider of the said scooter was one Ali. Near Pushpa shrama junction at Bennur side ring road, at about 6 p.m., the offending lorry bearing registration No. KA-04/B-3298 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came with high speed and hit the scooter. Consequently, the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries in K.R. Hospital. At the time of death, the deceased was hale and healthy and was earning Rs. 2.50 to Rs. 300 per day from his scooter mechanic work. He was the sole bread winner of the family and appellants were entirely dependent on him. On his death, the appellants filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs. 56,60,000 with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 2. The petition was contested by 3rd Respondent/Insurance Company only. On appreciation of the evidence on record and after hearing both the parties, the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 1,70,000 with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization to be payable by the Insurance Company. 3. The learned Counsel Mr. P. Nataraju appearing for appellants submits that, the Tribunal by ignoring the evidence on record has taken the income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000 per month only and awarded a meagre compensation of Rs. 1,35,000 towards loss of dependency, which is grossly inadequate. Since the deceased was a bachelor at the time of his death, the Tribunal ought to have assessed his contribution to the family at 50%, instead of assessing the contribution as 1/4th of his total income. The interest awarded at 6% per annum is on a lower side and that has resulted in miscarriage of justice. Since the deceased was a bachelor at the time of his death, the Tribunal ought to have assessed his contribution to the family at 50%, instead of assessing the contribution as 1/4th of his total income. The interest awarded at 6% per annum is on a lower side and that has resulted in miscarriage of justice. He was hale and healthy at the time of death and was earning about Rs. 6,000 per month by his mechanic work and used to spend his substantial earning for the maintenance of the family. His untimely death has rendered the appellants helpless in their old age and they are entitled for just compensation of Rs. 56,60,000 with interest @ 12%. 4. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company Mr. B. Pradeep would submit that, in the absence of any documentary proof, the Tribunal was justified in holding the income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000 per month, so also in calculating the contribution of the deceased as 1/4th of his total earning since he was a Bachelor and has awarded just and reasonable amount. Therefore, there is no ground to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 5. Having heard both the parties and also on perusal of the documents, the following point arises for our consideration: Whether the quantum of compensation awarded the M.A.C.T. is just and reasonable? 6. There is no dispute regarding the fact that, Rizwan aged 20 years died due to the fatal injuries sustained by him in a vehicular accident met by him on 13.9.2010 while travelling as a pillion rider on a scooter due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing registration No. KA-04/B-3298, which is covered under the insurance policy of third respondent. The appellants are his dependent parents. 7. As per the evidence on record, the deceased was a scooter mechanic and his monthly income at Rs. 3,000 per month as held by the Tribunal is on a lower side. Having regard to the year of the accident, his income needs to be considered as Rs. 6,000. The deceased being a bachelor at the time of his death, by deducting 50% of his income towards his personal expenses, loss of dependency shall be calculated by multiplying his annual income by a suitable multiplier proportionate to the age of his younger parent. 6,000. The deceased being a bachelor at the time of his death, by deducting 50% of his income towards his personal expenses, loss of dependency shall be calculated by multiplying his annual income by a suitable multiplier proportionate to the age of his younger parent. The second appellant/mother being 40 years age as on the date of the accident, the suitable multiplier is 15' as rightly adopted by the Tribunal. Hence, the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 5,40,000 (Rs. 3,000 x 12 x 15). Towards the conventional heads of loss of love and affection, loss of estate and towards funeral and other expenses, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 35,000. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, by awarding Rs. 50,000 globally on the above conventional heads, the appellants are entitled for total compensation of Rs. 5,90,000 as against Rs. 1,70,000 awarded by the Tribunal. 8. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 21st December, 2011 passed in M.V.C. No. 15/2011 by the Additional M.A.C.T. Mysore, is hereby modified, awarding a sum of Rs. 5,90,000 as against Rs. 1,70,000 awarded by the Tribunal, with interest @ 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation, from the date of petition till the date of realization. Thus, there would be enhancement of compensation by a sum of Rs. 4,20,000 with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 9. The 3rd respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 4,20,000 with interest thereon @ 6% per annum, within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. 10. Out of the enhanced compensation of Rs. 4,20,000, Rs. 2,00,000 with proportionate interest shall be invested in the name of second appellant/mother of the deceased for a period of ten years renewable by another ten years. She is entitled to withdraw the interest accrued thereon periodically. Out of the remaining amount, Rs. 1,00,000 with proportionate interest shall be invested in the name of first appellant/father of the deceased for a period of ten years renewable by another five years and he is entitled to withdraw the interest accrued thereon periodically. Remaining amount of Rs. 1,20,000 with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of appellant Nos. 1 and 2 in equal proportion. Learned Counsel Mr. Remaining amount of Rs. 1,20,000 with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of appellant Nos. 1 and 2 in equal proportion. Learned Counsel Mr. B. Pradeep is permitted to file Vakalath on behalf of respondent No. 3 within four weeks from today.