Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 76 (KAR)

N. K. Radhika v. M. S. Bhaskar

2014-01-23

B.S.INDRAKALA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. The above appeal is preferred against the judgment and award dated 08.09.2008 passed in MVC.NO.5705/2007 on the file of XVI Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and Additional MACT, Bangalore City. 2. The claimants claiming themselves as mother and younger brother of one Ashwin V. Bharadwaj preferred the said Claim Petition, claiming compensation on account of the death of said Ashwin v. Bharadwaj, in the accident which occurred on 10.07.2007 at about 9.30 p.m. owing to rash driving of the bus bearing registration No.KA-04-A-6036 in which victim was travelling. In the said accident the victim died at the spot. It is further contended that the victim was aged about 16 years, he was a student and on account of his untimely accidental death, the mother and his brother are put to shock and agony and also loss of income etc. 3. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the Tribunal deemed it fit to award a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation. 4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the claimants are in appeal inter alia contending amongst other grounds that the compensation so awarded is inadequate and thus seeks requires enhancement of the compensation. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that without considering the evidence on record with regard to the income and competency of the victim /deceased, has notionally awarded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards loss of dependency which is without any reasons; the amount awarded under conventional heads is also on the lower side and thus seeks enhancement. Further he also relies on decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Gopal and another Vs. Lala and others [2013 AIR SCW 5037] wherein for the death of 10 year old boy a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- is awarded. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent –insurer submits that on the basis of the evidence available on record, whatever the amount warded is just and proper and the impugned judgment and award does not call for interference. 7. Thus the cause of accident and death of the victim in the accident are not in dispute and like wise the age of the victim as 16 years, is also not in dispute. 8. 7. Thus the cause of accident and death of the victim in the accident are not in dispute and like wise the age of the victim as 16 years, is also not in dispute. 8. In Kishan Gopal’ s case referred to supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court citing the decision in Lata Wadhwa and others Vs. State of Bihar and others [ (2001) 8 SCC 197 ] has observed as hereunder: “In the said case that the compensation determined for the children of all age groups could be double as in its view the determination made was grossly inadequate and the observation was further made that loss of children is irrecoupable and no amount of money could compensate the parents. Having regard to the environment from which the children referred to in that case were brought up, their parents being reasonably well-placed officials of TISCO, it was directed that the compensation amount for the children between the age group of 5 to 10 years should be three times. In other words, it should be Rs.1.5 lakhs to which under the conventional heads a sum of Rs.50,000/- should be added and thus total amount in each case would be Rs.2 lakhs. Further, in the case referred to supra, it has observed that in so far as the children of employees of TISCO and one of the children was employed in the company in the said case having regard to the fact the contribution of the deceased child was taken Rs.12,000/- p.a. appears to be on the lower side and held that the contribution of such children should be Rs.24,000/- p.a. In our considered view, the aforesaid legal principle laid down in Lata Wadhwa’ s case with the all fours in applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand having regard to the fact that the deceased was 10 years’ old, who was assisting the appellants in their agricultural occupation which is an undisputed fact. We have also considered the fact that the rupee value has come down drastically from the year 1994, when the notional income of the non-earning member prior to the date of accident was fixed at Rs.15,000/-. Further, the deceased boy, had he been alive would have certainly contributed substantially to the family of the appellants by working hard. We have also considered the fact that the rupee value has come down drastically from the year 1994, when the notional income of the non-earning member prior to the date of accident was fixed at Rs.15,000/-. Further, the deceased boy, had he been alive would have certainly contributed substantially to the family of the appellants by working hard. In view of the aforesaid reasons, it would be just and reasonable for us to take his notional income at Rs.30,000/-.” 9. By applying the principle of the above referred case and by considering the income of the victim as Rs.30,000/- and age of the mother of the victim as 43 years and by applying the multiplier of 14, the appellants are entitled to be compensated at Rs.4,20,000/- (30,000 x 14). Further, an amount of Rs.50,000/- is awarded towards the conventional heads as awarded in the reported decision. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and award are liable to be modified. 10. With regard to the contention of the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company that a sum of Rs.50,000/- is already paid to the claimants by the BMTC. In this regard it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the claimants that the said amount of Rs.50,000/- has got nothing to do with the compensation to be awarded in this case as the said amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid as per the condition stipulated while issuing the monthly student pass. Further even in her cross-examination, PW-1 has deposed that Rs.50,000/- was paid on the basis of the monthly pass held by the victim and thus, the same cannot be taken into consideration. Hence, the following: ORDER The above appeal is partly allowed by awarding a sum of Rs.4,70,000/- with interest at the rate of 6 % p.a. from the date of petition till realization as against a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Out of the enhanced amount, the same shall be apportioned equally to both the claimants and out of the amount so apportioned, 50% of the same shall be invested in any of the nationalized bank of their choice for a period of 5 years in their individual name, with liberty to draw periodical interest as and when the same accrues and balance amount with entire interest shall be released in favour of the respective claimant for their immediate necessity. Draw the award accordingly. Petition partly allowed.