D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.@mdashAppeal by the insurance company u/s 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [for short, the Act], complaining that the quantum of compensation awarded in favour of the dependents of one T.V. Devaraj, who, unfortunately, had succumbed to the injuries that he suffered in an accident that occurred on 16-9-1994 at about 5.00 pm near Gundenahalli gate, Dabaspet on NH-4, while he was driving matador No KA-06 1396 and when bus bearing No KA 17 - 4554 dashed the matador, is on the higher side while adjudicating the claim petition of the dependents in MVC No 81 of 2005, on he file of Principal Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural district, Bangalore, in terms of the judgment and award dated 6-5-2005.
2. The only ground urged in this appeal is that the tribunal has gone beyond the pleadings and the very claim of the claimants, by quantifying the total compensation payable to the dependents at Rs. 12,15,400/-, detailed as under:
|
Towards loss of dependency |
11,90,000 |
|
Towards loss of consortium to 1st Petitioner |
10,000 |
|
Towards loss of love and affection to Petitioner No 2 to 4 - Rs. 5,000 each |
15,000 |
particularly, in so far as it relates to the quantification of loss of dependency in favour of the claimants at Rs. 11,90,000/-, which is by taking an higher than the income indicated in the pleadings in the claim petition, wherein the claimants had indicated that the income of the deceased was Rs. 7,000/- per month and also the total compensation at a sum of Rs. 12,15,400/- was beyond the total claim which was put at 10.00 lakh in the claim petition. In so far as other aspects regarding accident, negligence etc etc., are concerned, there is not much dispute and we do not propose to go into them in any detail.
3. In so far as the grounds urged in the appeal are concerned, submission of Sri A N Krishnaswamy, learned Counsel for the Appellant-insurance company is that the tribunal could not have travelled beyond the plea of the claimants and could not have embarked upon awarding a generous compensation, particularly under the head of loss of dependency not only by taking a higher income than what was pleaded but also in awarding a higher sum than what was claimed. Submission is that it is well settled proposition of law that no amount of evidence can support or can be any avail without the foundation of a commensurate plea and when the plea itself was for an income of Rs. 7,000/- per month and the claim for a maximum compensation of Rs 10.00 lakh, assuming that there was some supportive evidence placed before the tribunal by the claimants for being entitled to an higher compensation, any compensation over and above Rs 10.00 lakh and based on an income over and above Rs. 7,000/-per month should have been ignored.
4. We have bestowed our attention to this argument with some seriousness. While, we find that the claimants are wife, two minor children and mother of the deceased, the quantification by the tribunal under the conventional heads such as compensation towards loss of consortium to the first Petitioner at Rs. 10,000/- and towards loss of love and affection to other Petitioners numbering three, in all at Rs. 15,000/- is quite conservative. There is need to increase compensation under loss of consortium from Rs. 10,000/- to a minimum of Rs. 15,000/-, having regard to the age of the deceased and the age of the first claimant-wife, which was 27 years on the date of death of her husband. Likewise, compensation under the head of loss of love and affection ought have been put at not less than Rs. 10,000/- in favour of each of the other three claimants and to this extent, there is scope for sustaining the total compensation as per the award, even over and above the amount as is sought to be corrected by the learned Counsel for the Appellant-insurance company.
5. We also find that no amount is awarded by the tribunal under the conventional head of funeral expenses and expenses for transportation of body etc., and the same should have been quantified at not less than Rs. 10,000/-.
6. In so far as the argument that the monthly income as taken by the tribunal at Rs. 9,500/- as against the plea of Rs. 7,000/- and the total compensation going beyond Rs 10.00 lakh are concerned, we find that it is not a very rigid rule of law that the quantum of compensation can never exceed the amount claimed by the claimants themselves and in several cases, courts have taken the view that it is the duty of the tribunal to determine a just and fair compensation, notwithstanding the claim by the claimants either out of ignorance or for any other reason being on the lower side or having put forth a claim for a smaller sum.
7. Even in a suit, pleadings are always to be construed in a liberal manner is the rule and more so in a summary proceeding like a claim petition before MACT, the object of which tribunal is mainly to provide expedient and inexpensive relief to victims of motor accidents.
8. We may also notice that the deceased was a person in the prime of his age and a businessman owning a goods vehicle, which had been attached to a leading English daily being published from the capital of our state, for transporting bundles of it''s newspaper daily and was providing a regular business and that income was being supplemented by transporting goods in its return journey by carrying other goods available in or around the destination to which the vehicle was to reach every day.
9. This apart, the deceased obviously is a person with considerable business acumen and there was the possibility of his further prosperity in his business and he could have earned more income in the years to come.
10. While the law has developed in this country to provide for possible increase in the income levels towards future prospects in so far as salaried class of persons are concerned, it is yet to take strides, in so far as non-salaried class of people are concerned, and when such a case is before us, we can definitely attribute a reasonable increase in the income levels of the deceased over a period of time and particularly so in this case as the deceased was aged only 32 years at the time of accident. If not more, the deceased could have continued to earn for a minimum of 30 years and could have definitely improved his income with experience in the business and in the years to come.
11. If provision is to be made for such enhancement, the compensation as quantified by the tribunal may not even reach commensurate levels by applying these corrections etc, but as the claimants are not in appeal, we would rest content to confirm the judgment and award of the tribunal quantifying an amount of Rs. 12,15,400/- and would not embark upon enhancing, but would at the same time not embark on reducing it either and therefore while the argument of Sri Krishnaswamy is quite attractive, the same cannot succeed in the facts and circumstance of this case and therefore the appeal is dismissed.
12. The amount in deposit before this Court is directed to be transmitted to the tribunal forthwith. Balance if any to make good the compensation awarded by the tribunal along with interest on it to be deposited before the tribunal within four weeks from today.
