N.K. Patil, J.@mdashThis appeal by the claimants is directed against the judgment and award dated 25th January 2011, passed in MVC No. 7697/2008, by the XII Additional Small Causes Judge, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, (for short, ''Tribunal'') for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 4,16,000/- awarded in favour of the claimants as against their claim for Rs. 20,00,000/-, is inadequate. The facts in brief are that, the claimants are the mother and two brothers of deceased Y. Harish. They filed the claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that at about 07:30 P.M., on 12-08-2008, when the deceased Y. Harish was driving his Maruthi 800 Car from his house towards his office in a direction from west to east on Longford road at Shanthinagar, carefully observing the traffic rules and regulations, in front of Hockey Stadium, a Lorry bearing Registration No. KA-01/B-9448 came from behind at a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the hind portion of the Maruthi Car. Due to the impact, the Maruthi Car went right side of the road by crossing the central median, where by a BMTC Bus bearing Registration No. KA-01/FA=1212 which was coming from opposite direction, i.e. from east to west on the said road hit against the Car. As a result, deceased Y Harish sustained fatal injuries and died at the spot.
2. It is the case of the appellants that, the deceased was aged about 28 years and was working as an Office Assistant at M/s. Wipro Technologies Limited, through Raj Office Solutions Private Limited, drawing salary of a sum of Rs. 9,079/- per month and was hale and healthy prior to the accident. On account of the untimely death of the deceased late Y. Harish, the claimants/appellants/parents have lost the love and affection, social and moral support apart from financial security and therefore, they have to be compensated reasonably.
3. 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 25th January, 2011. 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 Rs. 4,16,000/- 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.
4. We have gone through the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal and heard learned counsel appearing for appellants and learned counsel appearing for Respondents, for quite some time.
5. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for appellant, at the outset is that, the Tribunal grossly erred in assessing the notional income of the deceased at only Rs. 6,000/- per month in spite of the oral evidence of PW2 and documentary Exhibit at P13 - salary certificates. He submitted that nothing has been elicited by the respondents at the time of cross examination to disbelieve the said oral evidence and the document. Therefore, he submitted that income mentioned in the said documentary evidence at Ex.P13 may be taken into consideration and deducting 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased and by adopting the multiplier of ''13''. compensation towards loss of dependency may be awarded. Further, he submitted that the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 45,000/- towards the conventional heads as per the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma''s case (2009 ACJ 1298) as against Rs. 20,000/- awarded by Tribunal. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal is liable to be modified by enhancing the compensation reasonably.
6. As against this, learned counsel appearing for fourth respondent-Oriental Insurance Company 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 and also the fact that the deceased was not a regular employee at Wipro and the Tribunal rightly deducted 50% towards his personal expenses as he was a bachelor. Therefore, interference in the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal is not called for.
7. 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 and the resultant death of the deceased. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was aged about 28 years and doing working as Office Assistant, on deputation at M/s. Wipro Technologies Limited through Raj Office Solutions Private Limited and was drawing salary of Rs. 9,079/-. per month. To substantiate the same, the appellants have examined the oral evidence of PW2, who is the Assistant Manager at Raj Office Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Bangalore, who has deposed that the deceased was working in their office as Office Assistant with employee code No. 1599 and was drawing salary of Rs. 9,079/- per month. In support of his statement, he has also produced the appointment letter, which is marked as Ex.P14 and as per Ex.P13 - salary certificate, the gross salary of deceased was Rs. 9,079/- per month. The said documentary evidence cannot be disbelieved even though the deceased was stated to be on deputation. The accident is of the year 2008. Further, it can be seen that when Ex.P13 was marked, counsel for the Insurer has not raised any objection. Now, it is not open for them to submit that the said income cannot be taken. Further, PW2 has in his oral evidence, has stated in unequivocal terms that the deceased was drawing the said salary. Therefore, having regard to the age, avocation, number of dependents and also the year of accident coupled with the oral evidence of PW2 and documentary evidence at Exs.P13, we accept the said documentary evidence and re-assess the income of the deceased at Rs. 9,079/- 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. Rs. 4,539/-) is deducted from Rs. 9,079/- towards his personal expenses, the net income would be Rs. 4,540/- per month. The deceased was aged about 28 years. But, as per the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma''s case (2009 ACJ 1298), the age of younger parent of the deceased should be taken into consideration for adopting the multiplier, for calculating loss of dependency. The mother is the only parent surviving. Therefore, for the age of the mother of the deceased being 48 years, the proper multiplier applicable is ''13'' as against ''11'' adopted by Tribunal. Thus, the compensation towards loss of dependency would work out to Rs. 7,08,240/- (i.e. Rs. 4,540/- x 12 x''13'') as against Rs. 3,96,000/- awarded by Tribunal.
8. Further, the Tribunal has erred in awarding only a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards conventional heads. The same is on the lower side As per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma''s case (supra), we award a sum of Rs. 45,000/- towards conventional heads, such as loss of estate, loss of love and affection and transportation and funeral expenses as against Rs. 20,000/- awarded by Tribunal. Thus the total compensation works out to Rs. 7,53,240/- as against Rs. 4,16,000/- awarded by Tribunal. 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 25th January 2011, passed in MVC No. 7697/2008, by the XII Additional Small Causes Judge, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, is hereby modified, awarding a sum of Rs. 7,53,240/- as against Rs. 4,16,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at 6% per annum on the enhanced sum, from the date of petition till the date of realization. Thus, there would be enhancement of compensation by a sum of Rs. 3,37,240/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.
The fourth respondent - M/s. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 3,37,240/-, with interest thereon at 6% per annum, within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment.
Immediately on such deposit by the fourth respondent - M/s. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the name of appellant No. 1, in Fixed Deposit, in any scheduled/Nationalized Bank, for a period of ten years, renewable by another ten periodical interest.
Remaining sum of Rs. 87,240/- with proportionate interest shall be released. in favour of the first appellant, immediately.
Office to draw award accordingly.
