Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 154 (KAR)

Lakshmamma v. Manjunath K. M.

2016-02-12

N.K.PATIL, S.SUJATHA

body2016
JUDGMENT : N.K. Patil, J. This appeal by the appellants-claimants is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 20-10-2012, passed in MVC No. 6683/2011, by the XI Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore City, (SCCH-12), (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’ for short), for enhancement of compensation., on the ground that, a sum of Rs. 6,11,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under different heads with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation, as against the claim of Rs. 25,00.000/-, on account of the death of the deceased Sri Muniraju, in the road traffic accident is inadequate. 2. In brief, the facts of the case are : The appellants are the wife and minor children of the deceased. They filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation against the respondents, on account of the death of the deceased in the road traffic accident, contending that, on 29-9-2011 at 10.00 a.m. deceased was travelling in a tractor and trailer bearing Reg. No. KA. 37.225 and KA. 40.1819 near Doddaballapur-Devenahalli NH 207 and when it came in front of Beerasandra gate near Kundana, Devanahalli taluk, at that time, the driver of the another tractor and trailer bearing Reg. No. KA 50.T.344 and KA.50.TT.345 came from hind side to over take in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the tractor of the deceased. Due to which, deceased fell down and died at the spot. It is the further case of the appellants that, deceased was aged about 33 years, hale and healthy prior to the accident, running condiment store and was earning Rs. 9,000/- per month and looking after the welfare of the family by contributing his entire earnings to the family. 3. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and other material available on file, has allowed the claim petition in part and awarded the compensation of Rs. 6,11,000/- under different heads with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realisation. 4. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants have presented this appeal for enhancement of compensation. 5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned counsel for Insurer. 6. 6,11,000/- under different heads with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realisation. 4. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants have presented this appeal for enhancement of compensation. 5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned counsel for Insurer. 6. The submission of learned counsel appearing for the appellants, at the outset is that, the Tribunal has erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards loss of dependency, towards conventional heads and the rate of interest and what is awarded is on the lower side and is liable to be enhanced reasonably. To substantiate the said submission, he submitted that, deceased was aged about 33 years, running condiment stores and earning Rs. 9,000/- per month and only earning member in the family, appellants who are his wife, aged about 25 years and children aged about 9 and 6 years respectively are depending on his income and as the accident has occurred in the year 2011, the income of the deceased may be re-assessed between Rs. 6,500/- to Rs. 7,000/- per month instead of Rs. 4,500/- per month and after deducting ?rd towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and applying multiplier of ‘16’, reasonable compensation may be awarded towards loss of dependency. Further, he submits that, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards conventional heads and the rate of interest is on the lower side and is liable to be enhanced reasonably in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court and this Court. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified. 7. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the Insurer, inter alia, contended and substantiated that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file and therefore, it does not call for interference. 8. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties and after careful perusal of the material available on record at threadbare, including the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the only point that arises for our consideration is : Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable? 9. The occurrence of the accident and the resultant death of the deceased are not in dispute. 9. The occurrence of the accident and the resultant death of the deceased are not in dispute. It is not in dispute that deceased was aged about 33 years, hale and healthy prior to the accident and only earning member in the family and the dependants are his wife and two minor children. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,500/- per month, which is on the lower side and it needs to be enhanced. Having regard to the age and occupation of the deceased, number of dependants and the year of accident, we reassess his income at Rs. 6,500/- per month to meet the ends of justice instead of RS. 4,500/- per month as assessed by the Tribunal. Out of which, if ?rd (Rs. 2,166/-) is deducted towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased as rightly done by the Tribunal, his contribution to the family comes to Rs. 4,334/- per month. The appropriate multiplier applicable is ‘16’ since deceased was aged about 33 years in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case, reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 as rightly adopted by the Tribunal. Therefore, we re-determine the loss of dependency at RS. 8,32,128/- (Rs. 4,334/- x 12 x 16) instead of Rs. 5,76,000/- awarded by the Tribunal and accordingly, it is awarded. 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case that on account of the untimely death of the deceased, wife has lost her companion and minor children are deprived of the love and affection, guidance and security of their father and in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court, we deem it fit to award a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 1,50,000/- towards loss of love and affection at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- to the each of the appellant Nos. 1 to 3, Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 25,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses. In all, the appellants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 11,32,128/- instead of Rs. 6,11,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. 11. 1,50,000/- towards loss of love and affection at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- to the each of the appellant Nos. 1 to 3, Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 25,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses. In all, the appellants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 11,32,128/- instead of Rs. 6,11,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. 11. Regarding rate of interest, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, 6% interest per annum awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side, since the accident is of the year 2011 In the light of the judgment of Apex Court and this Court, we award the rate of interest at 9% per annum on the enhancement compensation instead of 6% awarded by the Tribunal. There would be an enhancement of Rs. 5,21,128/- with interest at 9% p.a., from the date of petition till its realisation. 12. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 20-10-2012, passed in MVC No. 6683/2011, by the XI Additional Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore City, (SCCH-12), is hereby modified, awarding a sum of Rs. 5,21,128/- with interest at 9% p.a., from the date of petition till its realisation, in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 13. The Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 5,21,128/- with interest at 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realisation, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 14. Immediately on such deposit by the Insurer, out of the enhanced compensation of RS. 5,21,128/-, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the Fixed Deposit in the name of appellant No. 1, wife of the deceased, in any Nationalised or Scheduled or Grameena Bank, for a period of 15 years, renewable by another 10 years, with liberty reserved to her to withdraw the interest accrued on it, periodically. 15. A sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the Fixed Deposit in the names of each of the appellant Nos. 15. A sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the Fixed Deposit in the names of each of the appellant Nos. 2 and 3, in any Nationalised or Scheduled or Grameena Bank, till they attain 30 years, with liberty reserved to the appellant No. 1, wife of the deceased to withdraw the interest accrued on it, periodically, till they attain 21 years for their welfare and from 22 years to 30 years, they are at liberty to withdraw the interest accrued on it periodically. 16. Remaining sum of Rs. 1,21,128/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of appellant No. 1 immediately. 17. Draw the award accordingly.