Karnataka High Court
Smt. Gullamma And Another vs Basheer Sab And Another on 20 January, 2000
Equivalent citations: II(2000)ACC498, 2001ACJ97, ILR2000KAR1156, 2000(2)KARLJ393
JUDGMENT
1. This M.F.A. is taken up for final disposal with the consent of parties.
2. One Chikkamarappa, the deceased (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') died on 9-12-1996 at 11-45 a.m. The deceased was standing in front of the shop of one Chowdappa near Bestamaranahalli on Anekal-Rajamaranahalli Road, a matador van No. KA 02 4089 of the first respondent insured with the second respondent came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased as a result of which the deceased died on the spot.
The first appellant is the mother of the deceased. The second appellant is the brother of the deceased.
3. The Tribunal held that there was a rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of Matador and came to the conclusion that the accident occurred as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle that it was insured with the second respondent. I have no hesitation in affirming the finding of the Tribunal regarding the rash and negligent act of the driver.
4. With respect to the compensation, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 72,000/- under the following heads:
Rs. 54,000/- towards the loss of dependency; Rs. 10,000/- towards the loss of love and affection; and Rs. 8,000/- towards funeral and other expenses.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the compensation awarded was totally inadequate. It was submitted from the Bar that the deceased was working as a brick manufacturer and was earning Rs. 3,000/- p.m. The Tribunal came to an erroneous conclusion that the deceased was a coolie and determined his income at Rs. 30/- per day as Rs. 900/- p.m. It was further submitted that the Tribunal was in error in deducting 50% of the total sum awarded towards the loss of dependency. It was submitted that the people in rural areas do not spend so much on themselves and therefore, savings that are greater which the claimants would be entitled to.
6. Learned Counsel for the appellants relied on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Lakshman and Another v Susheel Chand Choudhary and Another , wherein this Court held that in respect of bachelors living in rural areas it would be appropriate to deduct one-third towards personal expenses since their expenses will be less than those people residing in urban areas.
7. This Court held at paragraph 6 in the above judgment as follows:
"Mr. Abdul Khader, learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, has submitted that this Court in several decisions has observed that normally bachelors spend more on themselves and, therefore, 50 per cent of their earnings will have to be deducted towards personal expenses. This may be so in respect of bachelors living in cities where there are so many diversions for spending money; but not so in a small backward town where the deceased was living where the opportunity for spending money would be very much less. Therefore, we consider deduction of one-third towards personal expenses would be appropriate".
8. Learned Counsel for the second respondent-Insurance Company, Mr. O. Mahesh, submitted that the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the deceased was earning Rs. 900/- p.m. since there was no material placed by the claimants that the deceased was earning Rs. 3,000/- p.m. Therefore, the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the deceased was earning a minimum wage of Rs. 900/- p.m. with respect to the labour in Brick Industries. There is nothing on record to show that the evidence given by the claimants can be disbelieved in toto. The Tribunal has not discussed why the monthly income of the deceased was reduced from Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 900/-. When there was no evidence brought out by the respondent and when there was no materials in the cross-examination, it was not appropriate for the Tribunal to hold that the deceased was earning only Rs. 900/- p.m. Therefore, I hold that in the absence of any materials produced both by the claimants and the respondents, the deceased would have earned a minimum sum of Rs. 50/- per day and this can be rounded of to Rs. 1,500/- p.m.
9. Following the Division Bench judgment in Lakshman, supra, I feel that 30% can be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased. 30% out of Rs. 1,500/- would come to Rs. 1,050/- and it may be rounded of to Rs. 1,000/- p.m.
10. I do not feel that the other heads require any revision.
11. Accordingly, I determine that the deceased would have earned a sum of Rs. 1,000/- p.m. and if we multiply it by 12 x 10 it would conic to Rs. 1,20,000/- towards the loss of dependency + Rs. 10,000/- towards the loss of love and affection and Rs. 8,000/- towards funeral and other expenses in all Rs. 1,38,000/- as total compensation will meet the ends of justice.
12. The balance enhanced compensation of Rs. 66,000/- shall be deposited before the Tribunal with interest. There is no award in favour of the second appellant.
13. The appeal is allowed in part and 25% of the enhanced amount shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in any Nationalised Bank as determined by the Tribunal. The balance of the enhanced amount shall be released to the first appellant, Smt. Gullamma.