Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 418 (KAR)

SUMITRA v. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.

2015-04-10

N.K.PATIL, RATHNAKALA

body2015
JUDGMENT : N.K. PATIL, J. 1. This appeal by the claimants is directed against the judgment and award dated 18.6.2012, passed in M.V.C. No. 6020 of 2010, by the Nineteenth Additional Small Causes Judge and Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-17) (for short, 'the Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation on the ground that the compensation of Rs. 4,38,000 awarded in favour of the claimants as against their claim for Rs. 1,25,00,000 is inadequate. The facts in brief are that claimants are the wife and major daughter of the deceased Jayanthilal D. Jain. They filed claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that at about 11 a.m. on 12.8.2010, when the deceased Jayanthilal D. Jain was riding the motor cycle, bearing registration No. KA 01-X 3814, on K.R. Road, within the jurisdiction of Chamarajpet Traffic Police Station, Bangalore, slowly and cautiously, by observing all the traffic rules and regulations from southern side to northern side, at that time, a BMTC bus bearing registration No. KA 01-F 2952 came from behind at high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle. Due to the impact, the deceased Jayanthilal D. Jain fell down and was dragged by the bus to a distance of 50 ft. on the said road. He sustained grievous injuries and was immediately shifted to nearby Victoria Hospital, but the doctors opined that he had expired on way to the hospital. 2. It is the case of the appellants that the deceased was aged about 44 years and a businessman, earning a sum of Rs. 10,000 per month and hale and hearty prior to the accident. On account of the untimely death of the deceased, the appellants have lost the love and affection, inspiration and guidance, apart from social, financial and moral support and, therefore, they have to be compensated reasonably. 3. On account of the death of the deceased, the appellants filed claim petition before the Tribunal, seeking compensation against the respondents. The said claim application had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 18.6.2012. Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, awarding a sum of Rs. 4,38,000 under different heads, with 8 per cent interest per annum, from the date of petition till the date of payment. Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, awarding a sum of Rs. 4,38,000 under different heads, with 8 per cent 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. 4. We have gone through the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal and heard the learned counsel appearing for appellants and also the insurer, for quite some time. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants-appellants vehemently submitted that the Tribunal grossly erred in taking the income of the deceased at only Rs. 4,500 per month. He submits that claimants have stated that the deceased was aged about 44 years and earning a sum of Rs. 10,000 per month by doing business and the deceased had even filed the income tax returns for the years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. But, disbelieving the same, the Tribunal, without any basis, has assessed the income of the deceased at only Rs. 4,500 per month and the same is liable to be re-assessed. Therefore, he submitted that a reasonable compensation may be awarded, by adopting proper multiplier and deducting 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal may be modified. 6. As against this, the learned counsel appearing for insurer vehemently submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is after due appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on file and also taking into consideration the age, avocation and also the year of accident, etc. Therefore, interference in the same is not called for. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, and after careful perusal of the judgment and award passed by the Claims Tribunal, the only point that arises for our consideration in this appeal is: Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable? The undisputed facts of the case are the occurrence of the accident and the resultant death of Jayanthilal D. Jain. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was aged about 44 years and a businessman. It is stated that he was earning Rs. 10,000 per month. The undisputed facts of the case are the occurrence of the accident and the resultant death of Jayanthilal D. Jain. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was aged about 44 years and a businessman. It is stated that he was earning Rs. 10,000 per month. To substantiate the same, the appellants have produced the income tax returns filed by the deceased during his lifetime at Exhs. P10 and P11 and one filed by the wife of the deceased/appellant No. 1, after his death, at Exh. P12. Exhs. P10 and P11 are the returns filed by deceased himself during his lifetime. Therefore, the same can be accepted. But, it can be seen that the Tribunal is not justified in assessing the income of the deceased at only Rs. 4,500 per month. The same is on the lower side and needs to be re-assessed. The accident is of the year 2010 and the deceased was aged about 44 years and had promptly filed the returns. Therefore, having regard to the age, avocation and also the year of accident and also the documentary evidence we re-assess the income of the deceased at Rs. 10,000 per month. Further, as the dependants are two in number, we deduct 1/3rd for personal expenses of the deceased. Accordingly, if 1/3rd (i.e., Rs. 3,333) is deducted from Rs. 10,000 towards his personal expenses, the net income would be Rs. 6,667 per month. Further, it is stated that deceased was aged about 44 years as on the date of accident. Therefore, for the said age, the proper multiplier applicable is 14' as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, , 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), as rightly adopted by the Claims Tribunal. Thus, the compensation towards loss of dependency would work out to Rs. 11,20,056 (i.e., Rs. 6,667 x 12 x 14) as against Rs. 3,78,000 awarded by learned Tribunal. 8. Further, Claims Tribunal has erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards conventional heads. In the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court and this court in catena of decisions, we award a sum of Rs. 50,000 for loss of consortium as against Rs. 20,000; Rs. 25,000 for loss to estate as against Rs. 20,000; Rs. 20,000 for loss of love and affection at the rate of Rs. 10,000 to each claimant and Rs. 50,000 for loss of consortium as against Rs. 20,000; Rs. 25,000 for loss to estate as against Rs. 20,000; Rs. 20,000 for loss of love and affection at the rate of Rs. 10,000 to each claimant and Rs. 25,000 towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses as against Rs. 10,000 awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, the total compensation payable to claimants works out to Rs. 12,40,056 as against Rs. 4,38,000 awarded by Claims Tribunal. There would be enhancement of compensation by a sum of Rs. 8,02,056 with interest at 8 per cent per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization, excluding interest for the delayed period of 286 days in filing the appeal. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the appeal filed by appellant is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 18.6.2012, passed in M.V.C. No. 6020 of 2010, by the Nineteenth Additional Small Causes Judge and Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-17), is hereby modified, awarding a sum of Rs. 12,40,056 as against Rs. 4,38,000 awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at 8 per cent per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization. Thus, there would be enhancement of compensation by a sum of Rs. 8,02,056 with 8 per cent interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, excluding interest for the delayed period of 286 days in filing the appeal. The insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 8,02,056, with interest thereon at 8 per cent per annum, within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment, excluding interest for the delayed period of 286 days in filing the appeal. Immediately on such deposit by the insurance company, a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 with proportionate interest shall be invested in the name of the appellant No. 1, wife of the deceased, in fixed deposit, in any scheduled/nationalised/grameen 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. 5,00,000 with proportionate interest shall be invested in the name of the appellant No. 1, wife of the deceased, in fixed deposit, in any scheduled/nationalised/grameen 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. 2,00,000 with proportionate interest shall be invested in the name of appellant No. 2, daughter of the deceased, in fixed deposit, in any scheduled/nationalised/grameen bank, for a period of ten years, renewable by another five years, with liberty reserved to her to withdraw the periodical interest. Remaining sum of Rs. 1,02,056 with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the appellant No. 1 immediately. Office to draw award accordingly.