Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 460 (KAR)

Krishnamma v. A. L. Shankarappa

2014-04-09

N.K.PATIL, P.D.WAINGANKAR

body2014
JUDGMENT : N.K. Patil, J. 1. Though this appeal is posted for orders, the same is taken up for final disposal, with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. This appeal by the claimants is directed against the judgment and award dated 1st December, 2009, passed in MVC No. 483 of 2002, by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore (for short, 'Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 4,35,000/- awarded in favour of the claimants as against their claim for Rs. 20,00,000/-, is inadequate. 2. The facts in brief are that, the claimants are the wife and daughter of deceased Kempanna. They filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, contending that, at about 2:30 p.m. on 18-6-2002, when, the deceased Kempanna was walking/proceeding on Bangalore-Bellary Road near Aunti Hotel in Devanahalli, the drive of the Maruthi Van bearing Registration No. KA-01/M-956 drove the same at a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him. Due to the impact, he fell down and sustained fatal injuries and immediately he was taken to Government Hospital, Devanahalli. But, unfortunately, he died on the way to the Hospital. 3. It is the case of the appellants that, the deceased was aged about 46 years and working as an agriculturist and doing sericulture apart from dairy work, earning a sum of Rs. 8,000/- per month and hale and healthy prior to the accident. On account of the untimely death of the deceased, the appellants have lost the love and affection, inspiration and guidance and apart from social and moral support 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 1st December, 2009. 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. 4,35,000/- under different heads, with 6% interest per annum, from the date of petition till the date of payment. 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. 4,35,000/- 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. 5. We have gone through the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal and heard the learned Counsel appearing for appellants, for quite sometime. The second respondent-Insurer is served and unrepresented. 6. The submission of the learned Counsel appearing for appellants at the outset is that, the Tribunal grossly erred in not assessing just and reasonable income of the deceased and that the monthly income of Rs. 3,750/- assessed by Tribunal is on the lower side. To substantiate the said submission, he submitted that the deceased was aged about 46 years and an agriculturist by profession and he was also doing sericulture and also dairy work. He has left behind wife and a daughter and the accident has occurred on 18-6-2002. Therefore, he submitted that reasonable monthly income of deceased between Rs. 8,000/- and Rs. 9,000/- be reassessed and 30% towards future prospects be added in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Limited and Others AIR 2012 SC 2185 : (2012)6 SCC 421 : (2012)2 SCC (L and S) 167: (2012)3 SCC (Cri.) 160: 2012 AIR SCW 2892 and deducting 1/3rd towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased, and adopting multiplier of 13', considering the age of the deceased, reasonable compensation be awarded towards loss of dependency as also conventional heads. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal is liable to be modified. 7. After careful consideration of the submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and after going through the entire material available on file, including the original records placed before us, the only point that arise for our consideration in this appeal is: Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal is just and reasonable? 8. 7. After careful consideration of the submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and after going through the entire material available on file, including the original records placed before us, the only point that arise for our consideration in this appeal is: Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal is just and reasonable? 8. After going through the entire material placed before us, it emerges that, occurrence of accident and the resultant death of deceased Kempanna in the road traffic accident are not in dispute. It is further not in dispute that, the deceased was aged about 46 years and an agriculturist by profession. It is stated that he was also doing sericulture and dairy work. But, to substantiate the same, they have not produced any documentary evidence. The claimants are none other than the wife and daughter of deceased. The accident is of the year 2002. Therefore, considering the age, avocation, year of accident, we are of the opinion that the monthly income of Rs. 3,750/- assessed by Tribunal is just and proper and we accept the same, to meet the ends of justice. 9. As rightly pointed out by learned Counsel appearing for appellants, in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Santosh Devi (Civil Appeal No. 3723 of 2012, arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 24489 of 2010), the claimants are entitled to additional 30% towards future prospects. 10. In the case on hand, we have accepted the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,750/- per month, as assessed by Tribunal. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Santosh Devi's case, we add 30% ( Rs. 1,125/-) to the monthly income of the deceased, towards future prospects. Accordingly, the total monthly income would be Rs. 4,875/- ( Rs.3,750/- + Rs. 1,125/-). As the claimants are two in number, 1/3rd is to be deducted towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased. Since the deceased was aged about 46 years, the proper multiplier applicable is 13' as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court Smt. Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another AIR 2009 SC 3104 : (2009)6 SCC 121 : 2009 AIR SCW 4992: (2009)2 SCC (Cri.) 1002, as rightly adopted by Tribunal. Accordingly, if 1/3rd (i.e. Rs.1,625/-) is deducted from Rs. Accordingly, if 1/3rd (i.e. Rs.1,625/-) is deducted from Rs. 4,875/- towards his personal expenses, the net income would be Rs. 3,250/- per month. Thus, the compensation towards loss of dependency would work out to Rs. 5,07,000/- (i.e. 3,250/- x 12 x 13') as against Rs. 3,90,000/- awarded by Tribunal. 11. Further, the Tribunal has erred in awarding only a sum of Rs. 45,000/- towards conventional heads. The same is on the lower side. As per the decision of the Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Venna's case, we award a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards conventional heads such as loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, transportation and funeral expenses and loss of estate as against Rs. 45,000/- awarded by Tribunal towards conventional heads. 12. Thus, the total compensation would come to Rs. 5,57,000/- as against Rs. 4,35,000/- awarded by Tribunal, with interest at 6% per annum on the enhanced sum, from the date of petition till the date of realisation. 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 1st December, 2009, passed in MVC No. 483 of 2002, by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, is hereby modified, awarding a sum of Rs. 1,22,000/-, with interest at 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realisation, in addition to the compensation awarded by Tribunal; The second respondent-Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.1,22,000/-, with interest thereon at 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realisation, within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment and award. Immediately on such deposit by the second respondent-Insurer, out of the enhanced compensation of a sum of Rs. 1,22,000/-, a sum of Rs. 75,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the name of the first appellant-wife of deceased, in Fixed Deposit, in any scheduled/Nationalised Bank, for a period of ten years, renewable by another ten years, with liberty reserved to her to withdraw the periodical interest. A sum of Rs. 47,000/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the appellant 1, immediately. Office to draw award, accordingly.