Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 769 (KAR)

K. M. Srirama Reddy v. Byreddy K. N.

2015-07-16

N.K.PATIL, RATHNAKALA

body2015
JUDGMENT : N.K. Patil, J. 1. Though this appeal is posted for admission, with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and the respondent 2, the same is taken up for final disposal. This appeal is by the claimants directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 20th September, 2013 passed in M.V.C. No. 4811 of 2011 on the file of the Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes at Bangalore (SCCH-1) (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal' for short). The Tribunal by its impugned judgment and award, awarded a sum of Rs. 4,98,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation on account of the death of the deceased late Sri Murali in the road traffic accident. The claimants have filed this appeal on the ground that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and requires enhancement. 2. The brief facts of the case of the claimants are that, the claimants 1 and 2/appellants 1 and 2 are the parents, claimants 3 and 4 are the sisters of the deceased. They have filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation against the respondents on account of untimely death of the deceased Murali in the road traffic accident that occurred on 28-5-2011 at about 5.30 p.m. due to the rash and negligent driving by the Driver of Tata Indica Car bearing Registration No. KA-07/A-316. Due to the impact, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and thereafter succumbed to the same. Further, it is the case of the appellants that the deceased was the only bread earning member of the family, aged about 25 years, Bachelor and owner-cum-driver of taxi. The entire family was depending upon the income of the deceased and hale and healthy prior to the accident. On account of untimely death of the deceased, the parents have suffered mental pain and agony, social and economic condition of the family is affected, sisters have lost love and affection, inspiration and guidance of their brother. Further, it is the case of the appellants that the deceased was getting income of more than Rs. 25,000/- per month and maintaining the entire family. Further, it is the case of the appellants that the deceased was getting income of more than Rs. 25,000/- per month and maintaining the entire family. Taking all these aspects into consideration, they have filed claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act before the Tribunal, claiming compensation against the respondents. 3. The said matter had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal in turn after due consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and the materials available on record, allowed the claim petition in part by awarding compensation of Rs. 4,98,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the appellants herein have presented this appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation. 4. We have gone through the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal. The submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants at the outset is that, the Tribunal has erred in taking the income of the deceased at only Rs. 6,000/- p.m. which is on the lower side as the deceased was owner-cum-driver of taxi and the only earning member of the family. The accident occurred on 28-5-2011. Therefore, he submitted that the income of the deceased may be reassessed reasonably and deduct 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased and by applying appropriate multiplier considering the age of the deceased, award reasonable compensation towards loss of dependency and also under the conventional heads by modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. 5. As against this, the learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent-insurer, inter alia contended and sought to substantiate stating that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is after due consideration of entire oral and documentary evidence available on record and the Tribunal has rightly awarded reasonable compensation towards loss of dependency and conventional heads and interference by this Court is not called for. 6. After careful consideration of the submissions of learned Counsel appearing for both the parties and after perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the only point that arises for consideration is: "Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?" 7. 6. After careful consideration of the submissions of learned Counsel appearing for both the parties and after perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the only point that arises for consideration is: "Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?" 7. It is not in dispute that the deceased was a bachelor and aged about 25 years, owner-cum-driver and he met with an accident that occurred on 28-5-2011, sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to the injuries and claimants are parents and sisters of the deceased. They have filed claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act claiming compensation against the respondents, contending that on account of untimely death of the deceased, the social and economic condition of the family is affected. Therefore, taking the age, avocation and year of accident, we can safely reassess the income of the deceased at Rs. 7,000/- p.m. to meet the ends of justice and out of which 50% is deducted towards personal expenses i.e. a sum of Rs. 3,500/- as the deceased was bachelor the remaining contribution of the deceased to the family would be Rs. 3,500/-. The deceased was aged about 25 years and the appropriate multiplier applicable is 18'. Accordingly, we deem fit to redetermine the compensation towards loss of dependency at Rs. 7,56,000/- (i.e. Rs. 3,500/- x 12 x 18) and accordingly awarded. 8. Further, in the light of the catena of judgments of Apex Court and this Court, we deem fit to award Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- to each appellant, Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs. 25,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses. In all, the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 9,06,000/- as against Rs. 4,98,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. There would be enhancement of Rs. 4,08,000/-. 9. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants that the interest awarded by the Tribunal at 6% p.a. is on the lower side and in the light of the catena of judgments of Apex Court and this Court, we deem fit to award interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the enhanced compensation from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Having regard to the facts referred above, the instant appeal filed by the appellants is allowed in part. Having regard to the facts referred above, the instant appeal filed by the appellants is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal dated 20th September, 2013 in M.V.C. No. 4811 of 2011 on the file of the Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, is hereby modified awarding Rs. 9,06,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. on the enhanced compensation from the date of petition till payment, excluding the interest for the delayed period of 468 days. The 2nd respondent-insurer herein is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount of Rs. 4,08,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. excluding the interest for the delayed period of 468 days from the date of petition till realisation, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment and award. Out of the enhanced compensation of Rs. 4,08,000/-, a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- each with proportionate interest shall be invested in Fixed Deposit in the name of the appellants 1 and 2-parents of the deceased in any Nationalised or Scheduled Bank or Grameena Bank, for a period of 5 years and renewable for another 5 years and they are is entitled to withdraw the periodical interest accrued on it. Remaining amount of Rs. 1,08,000/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the appellants 1 and 2 in equal proportion, immediately on deposit by the 2nd respondent-insurer.