Karnataka High Court
Smt. Venkatamma vs Surendrappa And Ors. on 3 January, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1999ACJ126, ILR1997KAR2420, 1997(3)KARLJ476, 1997 A I H C 3337, (1997) 3 KANT LJ 476, (1999) 1 ACJ 126, (1998) 1 CIVLJ 502, (1997) 2 TAC 771, (1999) 1 ACC 643
JUDGMENT Hari Nath Tilhari, J.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant Sri G. Krishnamurthy and Sri H.G. Ramesh learned Counsel for the Insurance Company - Respondent No. 3 None appears for respondents 1 and 2.
2. This appeal arises from M.V.C.No. 191/1987, decided by the Principal District Judge and Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kolar, allowing the claim of the claimant for compensation in part. The Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 38,000/- in total, as also interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum.
3. The only point in dispute that has been raised is the quantum of compensation. The claimant-appellant is dis-satisfied with the amount so awarded. It has been contended by learned Counsel for the appellant that the compensation awarded is inadequate and it requires enhancement.
4. To complete the facts, it will be proper to mention it that on 11.6.87, the lorry belonging to respondent No. 2 and driven by respondent No. 1, which lorry did bear Registration No. MYA-5016, made an accident and in that accident Narayanaswamy aged about 18 years had died. According to the claimant who is the sister of deceased Narayanaswamy, deceased was hale and healthy at the time of accident; the deceased was living with the claimant and maintaining the family of the claimant who is the elder sister of the deceased. Claimant's case is that on account of the rash and negligent driving of the Lorry, the accident did occur and it dashed against Narayanaswamy which resulted in causing fatal injuries and ultimately in the death of Narayanaswamy. So the claimant filed the claim petition claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 2 lakhs. It has been stated in the claim petition that at the time and immediately earlier to the accident, deceased Narayanaswamy was working as a Cleaner and agriculturist. His monthly income was about Rs. 1,200/-per month.
5. The respondents filed the written statement and contested the averments made in the claim petition. It was also asserted by the opposite parties - respondents, that monthly income of deceased was not more than Rs. 100/- per month and it was asserted that the claim was excessive.
6. On the basis of the pleadings the Tribunal framed the following issues :
1. Whether the accident in question had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No. MYA-5016?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief?
7. The Tribunal after having perused the record and the material on record held that the fatal accident, which had caused the death of Narayanaswamy had occurred on account of and due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the driver of the lorry, who is respondent No.1 in the claim petition, as well as in the memo of appeal. The Tribunal as such awarded compensation in total to the tune of Rs. 38,000/-. The bifurcation of which is as under.
Rs. 30,000 - For loss of dependency
Rs. 6,000 - For loss of expectancy of life
Rs. 2,000 - For transportation of dead body,
funeral and obseques.
8. Thus a total sum of Rs. 38,000/- with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum, was awarded. The Tribunal further held that Insurance Company's liability is also extended to the same extent as that of the owner of the lorry and all the three were jointly and severally responsible to pay the compensation, with interest and costs.
The claimant as mentioned earlier has preferred this appeal as she feels that the compensation awarded is not sufficient, but too meagre. Learned Counsel for the appellant has laid great emphasis on this aspect of the matter, particularly with respect to loss of dependency. Learned Counsel submitted that for loss of dependency, compensation atleast of Rs. 60,000/- should have been awarded. He further submitted that interest at the rate of 9 per cent is also less and it should have been more. The contentions of the learned Counsel for the appellant have been hotly contested by respondent Nos. 3's Counsel Sri H.G. Ramesh. Sri Ramesh contended that deceased was a bachelor and he was not a married person. He had left no wife or children, nor has he left any parents male or female. The claimant is only the sister and she is a married person, therefore, the claim petition was by itself not maintainable and was mis conceived. Sri Ramesh further contended that the sums that have been awarded as compensation are almost sufficient and satisfactory, they do not call for interference, even if it be held that the claim petition was maintainable at the instance of the sister and particularly the married sister of the deceased. On the question of interest Sri Ramesh contended that 9 per cent interest is on the higher side really and it does not call for any interference, as generally interest at the rate of 6 per cent is used to be awarded.
9. I have applied my mind to the contentions made by Learned Counsel for the parties.
10. As regard the contention of Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 3, on the question of maintainability, in my opinion the petition is maintainable even at the instance of the sister and brother stand on the same footing. In the case of GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, AHMEDABAD vs. RAMANBHAI PRABHATBHAI, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have been pleased held that, brother of deceased can maintain the claim petition if he is the legal representative of the deceased, and have been pleased to over rule the law to the contrary as laid down by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of BUDHA vs. UNION OF INDIA, . It will be profitable to refer to the following observations made by Hon'ble Venkataramiah, J., as he then was in the above mentioned decision, which have been made in paragraph-11 of the Judgment:-
"We feel that the view taken by the Gujarat High Court is in consonance with the principles of justice, equity, and good conscience having regard to the conditions of the Indian society. Every legal representative who suffers on account of the death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident should have a remedy for realisation of compensation and that is provided by Section 110-A to 110-F of the Act. These provisions are in consonance with the principles of law of torts that every injury must have a remedy. It is for the Motor Vehicles Accidents Tribunal to determine the compensation which appears to it to be just as provided in Section 110-B of the Act and to specify the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid. The determination of the compensation payable and its apportionment as required by Section 110B of the Act amongst the legal representatives for whose benefit an application may be filed under Section 110-A of the Act have to be done in accordance with well-known principles of law. We should remember that in an Indian family brothers, sisters and brothers' children and sometimes foster children live together and they are dependent upon the breadwinner of the family and if the bread-winner is killed on account of a motor vehicle accident, there is no justification to deny them compensation relying upon the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 which as we have already held has been substantially modified by the provisions contained in the Act in relation to cases arising out of motor vehicles accidents. We express our approval of the decision in Magjibhai Khimji Vira v. Ghaturbhai Taljabhai, (supra) and hold that the brother of a person who dies in a motor vehicle accident is entitled to maintain a petition under Section 110-A of the Act if he is a legal representative of the deceased."
11. As per Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, read with Entry No. II of Clause II of the Schedule, the brother and sister are legal heirs and legal representatives of the deceased male Hindu. So the claimant being the sister is the legal representative, no doubt under Hindu law, could have succeeded to the estate of deceased, as there is no other heir either of Class I, nor any heir mentioned in Entry-I of Clase-II and deceased being a bachelor there is no question of his having any sons or daughters. Since brother and sister being the legal representative, the claimant has been the legal representative and as evidence prove that he was dependant on the income of the deceased, the claim petition at the instance and on behalf of the appellant has been maintainable.
12. When i so opine that the deceased is entitled to maintain the claim petition, claiming compensation, I find support from the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of GENERAL MANAGER, KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BANGALORE vs. PEERAPPA PARASAPPA SANGOLLI AND OTHERS.,
13. In my opinion the multiplier of '5' has wrongly been applied by the Tribunal. The decessed was aged 18 years at the time of accident. He would have married at some times by or after 5 years. After the marriage no doubt the family problems would have taken place with a gap of atleast 3 years. So atleast for 8 years beyond doubt the deceased would have provided or contributed to the maintenance of the family of the sister and the claimant-sister would have been benefited the claimant's husband as has come in the evidence is dis-abled person. He is suffering from Leprosy. Any way when the deceased was living with his elder sister he must have been contributing to the maintenance of the family. The Tribunal has also opined that we can take that he must have been contributing a sum of Rs. 500/- per month to the family of the claimant. The Tribunal has opined that he would have contributed atleast for another five years. In my opinion, the contribution for five years may be mistaken, he could have contributed for atleast 7 or 8 years. Thus for 7 to 8 years from the date of occurrence, the claimant and her family would have benefited. Therefore, in such a case in my opinion, the multiplier of 7' should have been applied. When we apply the multiplier of '7' to assess the loss of dependency, it comes to Rs. 500/ 12 (months) x 7, which brings the figure Rs. 42,000/-. So loss of dependecy is assessed at Rs. 42,000/-. That the claimant would be entitled to that amount instead of Rs. 30,000/- as found by the Tribunal. As regards loss of expectation of life, it has been assessed at Rs. 6,000/- by the Tribunal. In my opinion there is no discrepancy or mistake in such assessment. The Tribunal has also assessed a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards transportation of dead body, funeral expenses etc., There is no dispute about it and I need not go into that. Thus considered, in my opinion, the claimant is entitled to the compensation as under:-
(a) Rs. 42,000/- - For loss of dependency;
(b) Rs. 6,000/- - For loss of expectation of life.
(c) Rs. 2,000/- - For transportation of dead body,
funeral and other obsequies.
14. Thus the total comes to Rs. 50,000/-. The contention as regard the interest is concerned has been made no doubt by the Learned Counsel for the parties. In my opinion, interest at 9 per cent had been rightly allowed, there is no question of it to be reduced to 6 per cent as contended by respondents' Counsel, as no appeal or cross objection has been filed by any respondent.
15. Thus, the appeal is partly allowed as mentioned above and the appellant is entitled to compensation in total to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- with interest at the rate of 9 per cent from the date of application till the date of payment in respect of the amount which has not been paid so far and cost of Trial Court, i.e., Tribunal. The costs of this appeal are made easy.