Karnataka High Court
Smt. Shantha Ramamurthy And Ors. vs Kanika Raj And Anr. on 12 June, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2005ACJ1946, 2004(1)KARLJ386, 2003 AIR - KANT. H. C. R. 2258, 2003 AIHC 3551, (2003) 4 KCCR 2493, (2004) 1 KANT LJ 386, (2005) 3 ACJ 1946
Author: Tirath S. Thakur
Bench: Tirath S. Thakur
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal arises out of an order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, whereby MVC No. 186 of 1992 has been allowed in part and a sum of Rs. 1,43,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. awarded as compensation for the death of late Sri P.K. Rama Murthy in a motor vehicle accident. The appellants/claimants pray for a suitable enhancement in the amount of compensation.
2. The deceased Sri P.K. Rama Murthy was working as an employee of the Kirloskar Company. On the 20th of December, 1991, he was driving a two-wheeler on the West of Chord Road, Bangalore, when a motor-cycle bearing Registration No. CKR 2563 came from the wrong side and dashed against the two-wheeler of the deceased. On account of the impact of the collision, the deceased fell down and sustained multiple injuries. He was removed to K.C.G. Hospital at Bangalore for treatment where he died. In due course, the claimants who happen to be the widow of the deceased and his three children filed a claim petition for payment of compensation of Rs. 11 lakhs under several heads. The case of the claimants as set out in the claim petition was that the accident in question had taken place due entirely to the rash and negligent driving of the motor-cycle by its driver entitling the claimants to compensation from the owner and the Insurance Company with which the offending vehicle was insured. The claim was opposed by the respondents on several grounds giving rise to four issues which the Tribunal framed and eventually decided in favour of the claimants. The Tribunal held that the accident in question had occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the motor-cycle and that the deceased had died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the said accident. While calculating the amount of compensation payable to the claimants, the Tribunal held the salary of the deceased to be at Rs. 1,500/- only per month out of which Rs. 500/- was deducted towards his personal expenses treating the balance of Rs. 1,000/- as his contribution towards the family. Taking the age of the deceased to be around 50 years, the Tribunal chose a multiple of 11 and awarded a sum of Rs. 1,32,000/- towards loss of dependency to the claimants. To this amount, the Tribunal added a sum of Rs. 3,000/- towards funeral expenses and transportation of the dead body apart from Rs. 4,000/-each towards loss of estate and loss of consortium taking the total amount of compensation to Rs. 1,43,000/- made payable with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of the deposit in the Court. The claimants not being satisfied with the said amount have appealed to this Court as already indicated earlier.
3. Appearing for the appellants, Mr. Sundara Murthy, strenuously argued that the Tribunal was in error in holding that the income of the deceased was limited to Rs. 1,500/- per month. He urged that the salary certificate produced by the claimants in the course of the trial before the Tribunal had been admitted into evidence and marked Ex. P. 8 which clearly indicated that the salary of the deceased was Rs. 4,029.47 paise per month. The Tribunal, argued the learned Counsel, had committed an error in holding that the salary certificate was inadmissible in evidence as the same had not been signed by any officer of the company with whom the deceased was employed. Alternatively, he submitted that the age of the deceased, as was evident from the record including the school leaving certificate produced along with the application filed in this Court for additional evidence, was around 49 years on the date of the accident. The multiple chosen by the Tribunal was therefore inappropriate as according to the decision of this Court in Gulam Khader and Anr. v. United India Insurance Company Limited and Anr. 2001(1) Kar. L.J. 340 (DB) : ILR 2000 Kar. 4416 (DB), the correct multiple applicable was 12 and not 11. He urged that the order passed by the Tribunal deserved to be modified to suitably enhance the amount of compensation payable to the claimants.
4. On behalf of the respondent-Insurance Company, Mr. Hegde contended that the claimants had not despite ample opportunity granted to them taken any steps to prove the income of the deceased either by adducing evidence that was legally admissible or by proving in accordance with law the contents of the so-called salary certificate marked Ex, P. 8. He urged that the salary certificate which was no more than a computer print out unsigned by any official of the company where the deceased was employed could not be read let alone made a basis for determination of the amount of compensation payable to the claimants. Alternatively, he argued that the deceased being in the employment of the company was due for retirement at the age of 58 years in which case the multiple of 12 would go beyond the date of his superannuation. The same could not therefore be applied to the multiplicand determined by the Court by reference to the salary of the deceased. He relied upon the Division Bench decision of this Court in Union of India and Ors. v. K.S. Lakshmi Kumar and Ors. 2001(1) Kar. LJ. 91 (DB) : ILR 2000 Kar. 3809 (DB), in support of his submission that in cases where the superannuation of the deceased falls within the period of multiplier, the salary received during the time the deceased would have remained in service and the pension received for the balance of the period could alone be made the basis for computing loss of dependency. Since the job held by the deceased was not pensionable on the showing of the appellants themselves, the multiple to be applied must necessarily be limited to the date of superannuation of the deceased from his service.
5. The Insurance Company has not preferred any appeal against the award made by the Tribunal. It has on the contrary deposited the amount awarded by the Tribunal thereby accepting its liability and the finding recorded by the Tribunal to the effect that the accident in question had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending motor-cycle that was insured with the company. We are in that view not called upon to examine over again the genesis of the accident. The only question that was raised before us for examination is whether the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and fair.
6. The Tribunal has while determining the amount of compensation payable to the claimants taken the income of the deceased to be Rs. 1,500/-per month/-. That figure is on a plain reading of the impugned award by the Tribunal a notional figure in support of which the Tribunal has not advanced or recorded any cogent reasons. The admitted position however is that the deceased was employed in the Kirloskar Company as a Junior Officer. In her deposition before the Tribunal, appellant 1 had stated that the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs. 4,500/- p.m. Among other documents produced by her in support of the claim petition the appellant had produced the salary certificate of the deceased that was marked Ex. P. 8. No objection to the admissibility of the said certificate or its being marked was raised before the Tribunal either in the course of the examination of the witness or separately. Having allowed the document in question to be let into evidence and having permitted the same to be marked, it is difficult to appreciate how the Insurance Company can now urge that the document could not be looked into or relied upon for purposes of determination of the salary that the deceased was drawing. That apart, the Insurance Company had the opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal on all issues including the income of the deceased. The company did not, however choose to adduce any such evidence. Not only that the statement of claimant/appellant 1 regarding the income of the deceased remained unchallenged in cross-examination. On the contrary, the cross-examination, suggested that the deceased was spending only Rs. 1,500/- p.m. for the maintenance of the family. If that was the amount which the deceased was contributing to the maintenance of the family his gross income must be presumed to have been more than the said amount. The Tribunal was therefore in error in treating the gross income of the deceased to be Rs. 1,500/- p.m. Suffice it to say that the admission of the salary certificate in the evidence without any objection regarding its admissibility coupled with the deposition of the claimant regarding the income of the deceased sufficiently establishes that the deceased was working as a Junior Officer in the Kirloskar Company and drawing a gross salary of Rs. 4,029.47 paise. That being so, the assessment of compensation payable to the appellant must proceed on that basis alone. Even if l/3rd of the gross income is deducted towards his personal expenses, the contribution of the deceased towards the maintenance of the family would be Rs. 2,700/- p.m. or Rs. 32,400/- p.a.
7. The next question relates to the choice of the multiple applicable to the case having regard to the age of the deceased and the fact that the deceased would have superannuated from service within a period of 8 years or so. The decisions of this Court in Gulam Khader's case, supra and K.S. Lakshmi Kumar's case, supra, provide a complete answer to that question. In the case of victims of road accidents falling in the age group of 48 to 52, the correct multiple applicable according to the decision in Gulam Khader's case, supra is 12 and not 11 applied by the Tribunal. Since however the deceased was holding a job from which he was supposed to superannuate upon attaining the age of 58 years, the ratio of the decision in the case of K.S. Lakshmi Kumar, supra, would apply. That decision rules that whenever the date of superannuation falls within the period of multiplier, the salary received during the service period and pension received for the balance of the period alone can be the basis for computing the loss of dependency. Applying that principle to the instant case, we are of the opinion that the multiplicand will have to be different for two different period into which the multiple may have to be split namely, (i) upto date of superannuation of the deceased, and (ii) after his retirement. Insofar as the period upto the date of his superannuation is concerned, the claimants would be entitled to a compensation of Rs. 32,400 x 8 = Rs. 2,59,200/- towards loss of dependency. For the balance period of 4 years according to the decision in K.S. Lakshmi Kumar's case, supra, the multiplicand has to be determined on the basis of the pension which the deceased may have received. It is common ground that the deceased was not entitled to receive any pension from the company with which he was employed. That does not however imply that for the balance of the period of 4 years, the claimants will not be entitled to any compensation on account of loss of dependency. The least which the appellants are entitled to urge is that for the balance of the period, the multiplicand may be determined by reference to the notional income of a non-earning victim of the road accident. That concept of a notional income in the case of non-earning victims of road accidents has been recognised by the Parliament in the 1994 amendment to the Motor Vehicles Act. We therefore see no reason why determination of the compensation for the balance of the period i.e., post-retirement part of the multiple the multiplicand cannot be assessed on the basis of the said notional income. Taking the notional income of the deceased at Rs. 15,000/- p.a. and deducting 1/3rd of the same towards his expenses, the appellants could reasonably claim that the contribution of the deceased towards the family would have been Rs. 10,000/- p.a. The compensation payable to the claimants for the post-retirement period of the deceased would therefore work out to Rs. 10,000 x 4 = Rs. 40,000/- taking the total compensation on account of the loss of dependency to Rs. 2,99,200/- rounded of to Rs. 3,00,000/-.
8. Insofar as the award of the Tribunal on account of the loss of estate is concerned, we deem it just and proper to raise the amount from Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 5,000/-, Compensation for loss of consortium, also deserves to be enhanced from Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 10,000/-. To sum up, the claimants shall be entitled to the following amount of compensation from the respondent-Insurance Company:
(i) Towards loss of dependency Rs. 3,00,000/-
(ii) Towards loss of estate Rs. 5,000/-
(iii) Towards loss of consortium Rs. 10,000/-
(iv) Towards funeral and other
expenses Rs. 3,000/-
______________
Total Rs. 3.18,000/-
______________
9. The respondent-Insurance Company has already deposited the amount awarded by the Tribunal in terms of the impugned judgment and award which has since been released in favour of the claimants. In that view, therefore, the differential amount payable to the claimants on the basis of this judgment shall be deposited by the Insurance Company with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of deposit. Upon deposit, the Tribunal shall pass an appropriate order regarding disbursement/investment of the amount so deposited keeping in view the observations made by the Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and Ors. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part and to the extent indicated above in modification of the award made by the Tribunal. The parties are left to bear their own costs.