However, since it is a case of death of a bachelor, the claimants are not entitled to any compensation towards loss of consortium. The Tribunal has grossly erred in awarding a sum of ` 20,000/- under this head. The same is not permissible and is accordingly set aside.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M.F.A. No. 8139 of 2015 (MV)
Decided On: 15.12.2015
Appellants: H.P. Rajakumar and Ors.
Vs.
Respondent: Madaraje Ars and Ors.
Vs.
Respondent: Madaraje Ars and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:N.K. Patil and P.D. Waingankar, JJ.
Citation;2016(3) ALLMR(Journal) 26
1. This appeal by the claimants is directed against the judgment and award dated 10th March 2015, passed in MVC No. 64/2013, by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nanjangud, (for short, 'Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of ` 5,52,000/-awarded in favour of the claimants as against their claim for ` 81,90,000/-, is inadequate.
2. The facts in brief are that, the claimants are the parents and sisters of deceased H.R. Abhishek. They filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that at about 08:00 P.M, on 06-04-2013, when the deceased was traveling as a pillion rider in Bajaj Discovery Motor Cycle bearing Registration No. KA-09/EU-9558, driven by his classmate one Sushruth M. Prasad, near Police check Post at Parasaiahnahundi, Mysuru- H.D. Kote Main Road, at that time, he met with an accident, on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of KSRTC Bus bearing Registration No. KA-09/F-3536. Due to the impact, the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Vidyaranya Hospital, Mysuru and then to K.R. Hospital, Mysuru, but, unfortunately, he succumbed to the injuries sustained, on the way to the said Hospital.
3. It is the case of the appellants that, the deceased was aged about 22 years and prosecuting his in IV semester B.E and also assisting his parents in agricultural operations and taking tuition classes, earning ` 15,000/- per month and hale and healthy prior to the accident. On account of the untimely death of the deceased, the claimants/parents and sisters have lost the love and affection, social and moral support apart from financial security 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 10th March, 2015. 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 `5,52,000/- 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 learned counsel appearing for appellants and learned counsel appearing for Corporation, for quite some time.
6. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for appellants, at the outset is that, the Tribunal grossly erred in assessing the income of the deceased at only ` 4,500/- per month. The same is on the lower side and liable to be re-assessed for the reason that the deceased was aged about 22 years and prosecuting his IV semester B.E. and assisting his parents in agricultural operations and also taking tuition classes earning `15,000/- per month and on account of his untimely death, the family is under severe financial crisis and they have lost the love and affection, guidance and inspiration in life. Therefore, he vehemently submitted that reasonable income may be re-assessed and deducting 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased and by adopting the multiplier of '18', considering the age of the deceased, in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in host of judgments, award reasonable compensation towards loss of dependency. Further, he submitted that the claimants are entitled to higher compensation towards the conventional heads as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in host of judgments as the Tribunal has not awarded reasonable compensation.
Further, learned counsel appearing for claimants/appellants vehemently submitted that the rate of interest awarded by Tribunal at 6% p.a. is also on the lower side as the accident has occurred on 06-04-2013 and in view of the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in catena of decisions, at least 9% to 10% interest per annum may be awarded in the instant case, to meet the ends of justice and the impugned judgment and award be modified accordingly.
7. As against this, learned counsel appearing for second respondent - Corporation sought to justify the impugned judgment and award stating that the same is passed after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file and the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased having regard to his age, avocation and the year of accident. Therefore, interference in the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal is not called for.
8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, and after careful perusal of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the only point that arise for our consideration in this appeal is,
"Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal is just and reasonable?"
The undisputed facts of the case are the occurrence of accident at about 8:00 P.M. on 06-04-2013 and the resultant death of the deceased H.R. Abhishek. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was aged about 22 years and prosecuting his IV semester B.E. course. It is stated that he was helping his father in agricultural operations and also taking tuitions and earning a sum of ` 15,000/- per month. To substantiate the same, the appellants have not produced any credible documents. The accident is of the year 2013. Therefore, having regard to the age, qualification, number of dependents being parents and sisters and also the year of accident, we re-assess the income of the deceased at `9,000/- per month, to meet the ends of justice. Since the deceased was a bachelor, we deduct 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased. Accordingly, If 50% (i.e. `4,500/-) is deducted from ` 9,000/- towards his personal expenses, the net income would be ` 4,500/- per month. The deceased was aged about 22 years. In the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in host of judgments including Munnalal Jain's case, we consider the age of the deceased for computing compensation payable towards loss of dependency. In the instant case, the deceased was aged about 22 years and therefore, the proper multiplier applicable is '18' as rightly adopted by Tribunal. Thus, the compensation towards loss of dependency would work out to `9,72,000/- (i.e. ` 4,500/- x 12 x'18') as against ` 4,86,000/- awarded by Tribunal.
9. Further, the Tribunal has erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards conventional heads. The same is on the lower side. As per the decision of the Apex Court and this Court in host of judgments, we award a sum of ` 1,00,000/-towards loss of love and affection, at the rate of ` 25,000/- to each appellant as against ` 20,000/-; `25,000/- towards loss of estate as against ` 10,000/-; and ` 25,000/- towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses as against ` 10,000/- awarded by Tribunal.
10. Further, it can be seen that the Tribunal is justified in awarding a sum of ` 6,000/- towards medical expenses. Hence, we accept the same.
11. However, since it is a case of death of a bachelor, the claimants are not entitled to any compensation towards loss of consortium. The Tribunal has grossly erred in awarding a sum of ` 20,000/- under this head. The same is not permissible and is accordingly set aside.
12. Thus the total compensation works out to ` 11,28,000/- as against ` 5,52,000/- awarded by Tribunal.
13. Further, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel appearing for appellants, the rate of interest at 6% per annum awarded by Tribunal is on the lower side, as the accident has occurred on 06-04-2013. Therefore, as per the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in catena of decisions and also considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it fit and proper to award rate of interest at 9% per annum, on the entire compensation.
14. 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 10th March 2015, passed in MVC No. 64/2013, by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nanjangud, is hereby modified, awarding a sum of `11,28,000/- as against ` 5,52,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at 9% per annum on the entire compensation of ` 11,28,000/-, from the date of petition till the date of realization. Thus, there would be enhancement of compensation by a sum of `5,76,000/-with 9% interest per annum on the entire compensation of ` 11,28,000/- from the date of petition till the date of realization.
The second respondent - Corporation is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of ` 5,76,000/-, with interest thereon at 9% per annum on the entire compensation of `11,28,000/-, within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment.
Immediately on such deposit by the Corporation, a sum of ` 1,75,000/- each shall be invested in the names of appellant Nos. 1 & 2/parents of deceased, in Fixed Deposit, in any scheduled/Nationalized Bank, for a period of five years, renewable by five years, with liberty reserved to them to withdraw the periodical interest.
Remaining sum of ` 2,26,000/- with interest at 9% per annum on the entire compensation of ` 11,28,000/-shall be released in favour of appellant Nos. 1 and 2, in equal proportion, immediately.
Office to draw award, accordingly.
Shri K. Nagaraja, learned counsel is permitted to file vakalath on behalf of second respondent/Corporation, within four weeks from today.
No comments:
Post a Comment