Karnataka High Court
Smt. Padmavathi vs Sri K. Ravichandran on 25 June, 2014
Equivalent citations: 2015 AAC 197 (KAR), 2014 (3) AIR KANT HCR 805, 2015 KASHLJ 5623, (2015) 4 TAC 804, (2015) 4 ACC 166, (2015) 3 ACJ 1798
Bench: N.K.Patil, B.Sreenivase Gowda
1
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2014,
: PRESENT :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. PATIL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.SREENIVASE GOWDA
M.F.A.NO. 7737 OF 2013 (MV)
Between:
1. Smt. Padmavathi,
W/o. Late Ramajinappa,
Aged about 27 years.
2. Karthick Kumar.R,
S/o. Late Ramanajinappa,
Aged about 10 years.
3. Mallikarjuna.R,
S/o. Late Ramanjinappa,
Aged about 9 years,
Since the appellants 2 & 3 are
Minors, Rep. by their mother
I Appellant.
All are R/at. Subash Nagar,
Nelamangala Town,
Nelamangala Taluk-562 125.
4. Smt. Nagamma,
W/o. Late Thimmaiah,
Aged about 71 years,
No.55, Kenkere Main,
Dinamagattahalli,
Gowribidanur,
2
Chikkaballapura District-562 101.
... Appellants
(By Shri. Kalyan.R, Advocate)
And:
1. Sri. K. Ravichandran,
S/o. Kuruma Gounder,
R/at. No.4/64, South Street,
Muthagapatti Post,
Namakkal District, T.N-625 612.
2. National Insurance Co., Ltd.,
Regional Office, 2nd Floor, No.144,
M.G. Road, Subram Complex,
Bangalore-1.
By the Manager.
... Respondents
(By Shri. B.C. Seetharama Rao, Advocate for R2;
R1 served and unrepresented)
******
This MFA is filed U/S 173(1) of MV Act against the
Judgment and Award dated: 15/02/2013 passed in MVC
No.1745/2012 on the file of the XXII Additional Small
Causes Judge & Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, partly allowing the claim
petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of
compensation.
This MFA coming on for Admission, this day,
N.K. PATIL. J., delivered the following:
3
JUDGMENT
Though this appeal is posted for Admission, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for both parties, the same is taken up for final disposal.
2. This appeal by the claimants is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 15th February 2013, passed in MVC No.1745/2012, by the XXII Additional Small Causes Judge & Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, (for short, 'Tribunal' ) for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of `19,62,000/-, awarded in their favour as against their claim for `40,00,000/-, is inadequate.
3. Facts in brief are that, the claimants are the wife, minor children and mother of the deceased Ramanjinappa. They filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that, at about 8:30 A.M, on 07-02-2012, when the deceased 4 Ramanjinappa was proceeding on motor cycle bearing Registration No.KA-52/H-3920, near Kunigal Circle, Nelamangala, Bangalore-Tumkur NH-4 Road, he met with an accident, on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-28/P-3909. Due to the impact, the front wheel of the said Lorry ran over his head and he succumbed to the same on the spot.
4. It is the case of the appellants that, the deceased was aged about 35 years and working as a Technician in the Engineering Department of Kem Well Bio Pharma Limited, Yeshwathpura Branch, earning a sum of `18,359/- per month and was hale and healthy prior to the accident. On account of the untimely death of the deceased, the appellant No.1 has lost the life partner at an young age, appellant Nos.2 and 3 have lost the love and affection, inspiration and guidance and appellant No.4 has lost the social, financial and moral 5 security and therefore, they have to be compensated reasonably.
5. 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 15th February, 2013. 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 `19,62,000/- 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.
6. We have gone through the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal and heard the learned counsel 6 appearing for appellants and also the learned counsel appearing for Insurer, for quite some time.
7. Learned counsel appearing for appellants at the outset submits that, the Tribunal grossly erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards loss of dependency, inasmuch as it has erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at only `10,000/-, when in fact, as per Ex.P12, salary slip, the deceased was getting gross salary of `18,359/- p.m. In support of the said income, the claimants have also examined the Administrative Officer of the Company in which the deceased was working and filed his affidavit and also produced documentary evidence such as confirmation letter and offer letter as per Exs.P15 and P16. Further, he submits that as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma's case (2009 ACJ 1298), the claimants are entitled to additional 50% of the income towards future prospects of the deceased towards loss of dependency, as the deceased was aged 7 between 30 years and 40 years and also in a secured job. Therefore, he submits reasonable income of the deceased may be re-assessed and adding 50% towards future prospects, deducting a sum of `150/- towards professional tax and also deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses and adopting multiplier of '16' having regard to the age of the deceased, reasonable compensation be awarded towards loss of dependency and also under conventional heads and the impugned judgment and award may be modified accordingly.
Regarding the specific submission of the learned counsel appearing for Insurer that, the claimants are not entitled to a sum of `4,00,000/- paid by the employer towards future educational expenses of the minor children of deceased, he vehemently submitted that the said submission has no basis and whatever the amount received by the claimants from the employer of the deceased is not amenable to any deduction. In this regard, he strongly relied upon the decision of the 8 Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Helen C. Rebello (Mrs.) and others Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and another reported in (1999) 1 Supreme Court Cases 90 and took us through paragraphs 32, 33 and 35 of the said judgment and submitted that, death is only a step or contingency in terms of the contract, to receive the amount. Similarly any cash, bank balance, shares, fixed deposits, etc. though are all a pecuniary advantage receivable by the heirs on account of one's death but all these have no correlation with the amount receivable under a statute occasioned only on account of accidental death.
Further, regarding the compassionate appointment given to the wife of the deceased, he relied upon another judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vimal Kanwar and others Vs. Kishore Dan and others reported in (2013) 7 Supreme Court Cases 476 and drew our attention to paragraph 21 of 9 the said judgment and submitted that, compassionate appointment cannot be an advantage receivable by the heirs on account of one's death and have no correlation with the amount receivable under a statute occasioned on account of accidental death. Compassionate appointment may have nexus with the death of an employee while in service but it is not necessary that it should have a correlation with the accidental death.
Further, he vehemently submitted that, in the instant case, the deceased was aged about just 35 years, working as Technician and the only earning member in the family. The spouse was aged about only 26 years, minor children aged about 9 years and 8 years and the mother was a senior citizen aged about 70 years, at the time of death of deceased. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and having Corporate Social responsibility, the Company has thought it fit to provide a compassionate appointment to the wife of the deceased to tide over the sudden and 10 unexpected financial crisis and also paid a sum of `4,00,000/- towards the future educational expenses of the minor children of deceased, for which the Insurer cannot have any reservations and it is not the concern of the Insurer and it cannot shirk from its liability of indemnifying the award passed on account of the untimely and unnatural death of deceased in the road traffic accident. Therefore, he vehemently submitted that the Insurer cannot take advantage of the pecuniary benefits received by the claimants from the employer of the deceased and the submission of the learned counsel appearing for Insure is liable to be rejected at the threshold.
Further, learned counsel appearing for claimants vehemently submitted that the rate of interest awarded by Tribunal at 6% p.a. is also on the lower side as the accident has occurred on 07-02-2012. In view of the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in catena of decisions, at least 8% to 10% 11 interest may be awarded in the instant case, to meet the ends of justice and the impugned judgment and award be modified accordingly.
8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for Insurer inter alia sought to justify and substantiate the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, stating that the same is passed after due consideration of the entire material available on file, including the oral and documentary evidence and also considering the fact that the wife of the deceased got compassionate appointment and getting regular salary apart from family pension and payment of `4,00,000/- to meet the educational expenses of the minor children of deceased, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at `10,000/-per month and awarded reasonable compensation towards loss of dependency and conventional heads. Hence, interference in the monthly income assessed by Tribunal is not warranted. 12
Further, he vehemently submitted that a sum of `4,00,000/- paid by the employer to the wife of the deceased towards educational expenses of the minor children of deceased is liable to be deducted from out of the compensation awarded towards loss of dependency on the ground that the wife of the deceased has been given compassionate appointment in the Company in which the deceased was working and she is getting regular salary. Therefore, he submitted, after making deduction of `4,00,000/-, loss of dependency may be computed and the judgment and award passed by Tribunal be modified.
9. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and after perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, including the original records placed before us, the points that arise for our consideration in this appeal are, 13 1] Whether the reasoning given by Tribunal for assessing the monthly income of the deceased at `10,000/- is just and proper?
2] Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal is just and reasonable?"
Re-Point - 1] : After going through the entire material placed before us, it emerges that, occurrence of accident and the resultant death of the deceased in the road traffic accident are not in dispute. It is further not disputed that the offending vehicle in question was duly insured and that the Policy of Insurance was also in force as on the date of accident. Further, the Insurance Company has also admitted its liability of indemnifying the award passed on account of the untimely death of the deceased in the road traffic accident. It is further not in dispute that the deceased Ramnjinappa was aged about 35 years, working as Technician in the Engineering Department of Kemwell Biopharma Private Limited.14
10. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for appellants, the Tribunal grossly erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at only `10,000/-, on two grounds, i.e. the wife of deceased has got compassionate appointment in the Company where the deceased was working and getting monthly salary of `6,000/- and the family of the deceased has also received a sum of `4,00,000/- towards the educational expenses of the minor children of deceased. As per salary slip of the deceased for the month of January 2012, the deceased was drawing gross salary of `18,359/- per month and net salary of `14,019/- per month. In support of the income stated by the claimants, the claimants have produced salary slip of deceased at Ex.P8 and also examined one, Shri Manjunath S, H.R. the Administrative Officer of the said Company and also filed his Affidavit and also produced the authorization letter at Ex.P17 for giving evidence and to produce the documents. Further, the claimants have also produced Exs.P15 and P16, confirmation 15 letter and offer letter in support of the income of the deceased. When these clinching document evidence are produced, Tribunal is not justified in taking the income at `10,000/- p.m.
11. Further, in support of the submission of the learned counsel appearing for appellants that, the reasoning given by Tribunal for assessing the monthly income of `10,000/- is liable to be set aside, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Helen C. Rebello (Mrs.) and Others Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Another (1991) 1 Supreme Court Cases 90 (paragraphs 32, 33 and 35) and the latest judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vimal Kanwar and others Vs. Kishore Dan and others (2013) 7 Supreme Court Cases 476 (paragraph 21) and submitted that in view of the ratio of law laid down in the aforesaid two judgments, pecuniary advantage 16 would have no correlation to the accidental death for which compensation is computed.
12. After going through the aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court, we are of the view that there is substance in the submission of the learned counsel appearing for claimants and it is worthwhile to extract paragraphs 32, 33 and 35 of the decision of Apex Court in Helen's case (supra) as follows:
32. So far as the general principle of estimating damages under the common law is concerned, it is settled that the pecuniary loss can be ascertained only by balancing on one hand, the loss to the claimant of the future pecuniary benefits that would have accrued to him but for the death with the "pecuniary advantage" which from whatever source comes to him by reason of the death. In other words, it is the balancing of loss and gain of the claimant occasioned by the death. But this has to change its colour to the extent a statute intends to do. Thus, this has to be interpreted in the light of the provisions of the Motor 17 Vehicles act, 1939. It is very clear, to which there could be no doubt that this Act delivers compensation to the claimant only on account of accidental injury or death, not on account of any other death. Thus, the pecuniary advantage accruing under this Act has to be deciphered, correlating with the accidental death. The compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act is on account of the pecuniary loss to the claimant by accidental injury or death and not other forms of death. If there is natural death or death by suicide, serious illness, including even death by accident, through train, air flight not involving a motor vehicle, it would not be covered under the Motor Vehicles Act. Thus, the application of the general principle under the common law of loss and gain for the computation of compensation under this Act must correlate to this type of injury or death, viz., accidental. If the words "pecuniary advantage" from whatever source are to be interpreted to mean any form of death under this Act, it would dilute all possible benefits conferred on the claimant and would be contrary to the spirit of the law. If the "pecuniary advantage" resulting 18 from death means pecuniary advantage coming under all forms of death then it will include all the assets moveable, immovable, shares, bank accounts, cash and every amount receivable under any contract. In other words, all heritable assets including what is willed by the deceased etc., This would obliterate both, all possible conferment of economic security to the claimant by the deceased and the intentions of the legislature.
By such an interpretation, the tort feasor in spite of his wrongful act or negligence, which contributes to the death, would have in many cases no liability or meagre liability. In our considered opinion, the general principle of loss and gain takes colour of this statute, viz., the gain has to be interpreted which is as a result of the accidental death and the loss on account of the accidental death. Thus, under the present Act, whatever pecuniary advantage is received by the claimant, from whatever source, would only mean which comes to the claimant on account of the accidental death and not other forms of death. The constitution of the Motor Accident Claims 19 Tribunal itself under Section 110 is, as the section states:
"....for the purpose of adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to, ...".
33. Thus, it would not include that which the claimant receives on account of other forms of deaths, which he would have received even apart from accidental death. Thus, such pecuniary advantage would have no corelation to the accidental death for which compensation is computed. Any amount received or receivable not only on account of the accidental death but that which would have come to the claimant even otherwise, could not be construed to be the "pecuniary advantage", liable for deduction. However, where the employer insures his employee, as against injury or death arising out of an accident, any amount received out of such insurance on the happening of such incident may be an amount liable for deduction. However, our legislature has taken note of such contingency through the proviso of 20 Section 95. Under it the liability of the insurer is excluded in respect of injury or death, arising out of and in the course of employment of an employee."
35. Broadly, we may examine the receipt of the provident fund which is a deferred payment out of the contribution made by an employee during the tenure of his service. Such employee or his heirs are entitled to receive this amount irrespective of the accidental death. This amount is secured, is certain to be received, while the amount under the Motor Vehicles Act is uncertain and is receivable only on the happening of the event, viz., accident, which may not take place at all. Similarly, family pension is also earned by an employee for the benefit of his family in the form of his contribution in the service in terms of the service conditions receivable by the heirs after his death. The heirs receive family pension even otherwise than the accidental death. No corelation between the two. Similarly, life insurance policy is received either by the insured or the heirs of the insured on account of the contract with the 21 insurer, for which the insured contributes in the form of premium. It is receivable even by the insured if he lives till maturity after paying all the premiums. In the case of death, the insurer indemnifies to pay the sum to the heirs, again in terms of the contract for the premium paid. Again, this amount is receivable by the claimant not on account of any accidental death but otherwise on the insured's death. Death is only a step or contingency in terms of the contract, to receive the amount. Similarly any cash, bank balance, shares, fixed deposits, etc. though are all a pecuniary advantage receivable by the heirs on account of one's death but all these have no corelation with the amount receivable under a statute occasioned only on account of accidental death. How could such an amount come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as "pecuniary advantage" liable for deduction. When we seek the principle of loss and gain, it has to be on a similar and same plane having nexus, inter se, between them and not to which there is no semblance of any corelation. The insured (deceased) contributes his own money for 22 which he receives the amount which has no corelation to the compensation computed as against the tortfeasor for his negligence on account of the accident . As aforesaid, the amount receivable as compensation under the Act is on account of the injury or death without making any contribution towards it, then how can the fruits of an amount received through contributions of the insured be deducted out of the amount receivable under the Motor Vehicles Act. The amount under this Act he receives without any contribution. As we have said, the compensation payable under the Motor vehicles Act is statutory while the amount receivable under the life insurance policy is contractual.
(emphasis supplied).
13. It is also worthwhile to extract Paragraph 21 of the decision of the Apex Court in Vimal Kanwar's case (supra) as follows:
21. "Compassionate appointment" can be one of the conditions of service of an employee, if a scheme to that effect is framed by the 23 employer. In case, the employee dies in harness i.e., while in service leaving behind the dependants, one of the dependants may request for compassionate appointment to maintain the family of the deceased employee who dies in harness. This cannot be stated to be an advantage receivable by the heirs on account of one's death and have no correlation with the amount receivable under a statute occasioned on account of accidental death.
Compassionate appointment may have nexus with the death of an employee while in service but it is not necessary that it should have a correlation with the accidental death. An employee dies in harness even in normal course, due to illness and to maintain the family of the deceased one of the dependants may be entitled for compassionate appointment but that cannot be termed as "pecuniary advantage" that comes under the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act and any amount received on such appointment is not liable for deduction for determination of compensation under the Motor vehicles Act." (emphasis supplied) 24
14. After careful perusal of the aforesaid paragraphs, it is seen that, the said two Judgments are aptly applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. In the instant case, the deceased died on account of accidental injuries on account of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. The wife of the deceased aged about 26 years has been given compassionate appointment by the employer of the deceased and in addition to that, having Corporation Social Responsibility, the employer has paid a sum of `4,00,000/- to meet the educational expenses of the minor children of the deceased aged about 9 years and 8 years, at the time of death of deceased. These two benefits are given by the employer only to tide over the sudden and unexpected financial crisis and to save the family from a disastrous situation and also to see that the family lives with dignity and honour. It is an ex-gratia amount which has been given by the employer, upon the sudden death of its employee and out of concern to the family of the 25 deceased and the Insurer cannot take any shelter under this nor take any benefit of the same and its responsibility of indemnifying the award remains same and does not vary.
15. Therefore, if the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid two judgments is applied to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, then the reasoning given by Tribunal for assessing the monthly income of the deceased at `10,000/-, taking into consideration the compassionate appointment given to wife of deceased and also payment of `4,00,000/- to meet the educational expenses of the deceased, cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.
16. Further, it is significant to note, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case (2009 ACJ 1298), the deductions from salary are only income tax and professional tax and in 26 view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shyamwati Sharma and others Vs. Karam Singh and others (2010 ACJ 1968), no deductions could be made towards GPF, life insurance premium, repayments of loans for determining the income of deceased for the purpose of computation of compensation towards loss of dependency. Following the said judgment, full bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in its recent decision reported in 2014 ACJ 1416 in the case of Manasvi Jain Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and others, held that while ascertaining the income of the deceased, any deductions shown in the salary certificate as deductions towards GPF, life insurance premium, repayments of loans, etc. should not be excluded from the income and the deduction towards income tax/surcharge alone should be considered to arrive at the net income of the deceased. Thus in view of the law laid down in all the three aforesaid three judgments, we are of the firm view that no deductions could be made from out of the salary 27 of deceased except income tax and professional tax. Accordingly, holding that the Tribunal is not justified in taking into account the compassionate appointment given to the wife and also any pecuniary advantage received by the family of the deceased, while assessing the income of the deceased for calculating loss of dependency, we answer point No.1 in the 'Negative'.
Re-Point 2] : So far as quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal is concerned, it is seen that, the compensation awarded towards loss of dependency is on the lower side and liable to the computed properly. Accordingly, we answer point No.2 also in the 'Negative' and proceed to compute the compensation payable towards loss of dependency and also conventional heads on account of the death of the deceased Ramanjinappa in the road traffic accident as follows.
17. It is not in dispute that the deceased was aged about 35 years and working as Technician in 28 Engineering Department of Kemwell Biopharma Private Limited. As per Ex.P8, salary slip for the month of January 2012, preceding the month in which the accident occurred, the deceased was getting gross salary of `18,359/- per month. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for appellants, since the deceased was aged between 30 years and 40 years, and also in a secured job, another 50% is to be added towards future prospects of the deceased as per the law laid down in Sarla Verma's case (supra). Accordingly, if 50% (i.e. `9,179/-) is added to the aforesaid salary of the deceased, the total income comes to `27,538/-. From this, if a sum of `150/- is deducted towards professional tax, the net income comes to `27,388/- per month. Per annum, it works out to `3,28,656/-. Out of this, if income tax of `14,865/- is deducted at the rate of 10% on `1,48,656/- {`3,28,656/- (-) `1,80,000/-} , the net annual income comes to `3,13,791/-. Out of this, since the number of dependents are four, 1/4th is to be deducted towards the personal and living 29 expenses of the deceased as per Sarla Verma's case (supra). Accordingly, if 1/4th (i.e. `78,447/-) is deducted from it, the net income comes to `2,35,344/-. Further, as the deceased was aged about 35 years at the time of accident, the appropriate multiplier applicable is '16', in view of the aforesaid judgment in Sarla Verma's case (supra). Thus, the compensation towards loss of dependency would work out to `37,65,504/- (i.e. `2,35,344/- x '16') as against `18,72,000/- awarded by Tribunal.
18. However, so far as compensation awarded towards conventional heads, i.e. `40,000/- towards loss of love and affection at the rate of `10,000/- to each claimant and `25,000/- towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses is concerned, we are of the considered view that the same is just and proper and does not call for interference by this Court.
19. Further, so far as compensation of `25,000/- awarded by Tribunal towards loss of consortium is concerned, it is worthwhile to extract the relevant 30 portion of paragraph 20 of the full bench decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbir Singh and others reported in 2013 ACJ 1403, wherein it is held that, consortium is the right of spouse to the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, society, solace, affection and sexual relations with his or her mate.
"20. xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
Xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
It may be noted that the sum of Rs.2,500 to Rs.10,000 under those heads was fixed several decades ago and having regard to inflation factor, the same needs to be increased. In Sarla Verma's case, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), it was held that compensation for loss of consortium should be in the range of Rs.5,000 to Rs.10,000. In legal parlance, 'consortium' is the right of the spouse to the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, society, solace, affection and sexual relations with his or her mate. That non-pecuniary head of damages has not been properly understood by our courts. The loss of companionship, love, care and protection, etc., which the spouse is entitled to get, has to be compensated appropriately. The concept of non-pecuniary damage for loss of consortium is one of the major heads of award of compensation in other parts of the world, more particularly in the United States of America, Australia, etc. English courts have also recognized the right of a spouse to get 31 compensation even during the period of temporary disablement. By loss of consortium, the courts have made an attempt to compensate the loss of spouse's affection, comfort, solace, companionship, society, assistance, protection, care and sexual relations during the future years. Unlike the compensation awarded in other countries and other jurisdictions, since the legal heirs are otherwise adequately compensated for the pecuniary loss, it would not be proper to award a major amount under this head.
Hence, we are of the view that it would only be just and reasonable that the courts award at least Rs.1,00,000 towards loss of consortium."
(emphasis supplied)
20. After going through the above paragraph, we have no hesitation in observing that, the relationship of a husband and wife is very unique, distinct and a special one, uncomparable to any other relationships on earth and they are the strong wheels of the chariot of journey of life. If suddenly one of the spouses departs from the journey of life, midway, on account of unnatural and untimely death, a large vacuum is created in the life of the surviving spouse, which is difficult to fill. In this connection, it may be observed 32 that a spouse is the best friend of the opposite sex. A spouse is not only a driving force, friend, philosopher and guide, but also a soul-mate and a partner for life, sharing equally the joys and sorrows throughout the journey of life. Loss of one of the spouse suddenly would leave the other spouse in dark, leaving the entire burden of carrying on the family mantle further, all alone. Worst is the case, when there are minor children to be taken care of. Because of the unnatural death of one of the spouses, the surviving spouse would be deprived of all the joys and happiness of life and companionship apart from natural sexual pleasure, gifted by god, which the spouse is entitled to like any other spouse and which in fact keeps a check on the physical and mental wellbeing of both spouses.
Also, it must not be forgotten that the very presence and existence of the spouse would give mountain of strength to the other spouse to face tough situations in life. But, it is hard to compensate the same in terms of money. Therefore, considering all the 33 above said aspects coupled with the ratio of law laid down by the full bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh and others (supra), we have no hesitation in awarding a sum of `1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium.
21. Further, it can be seen that, the Tribunal has failed to award any compensation towards loss of estate. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it fit and proper to award a sum of `25,000/- towards loss of estate.
22. Thus, the total compensation payable to appellants comes to `39,55,504/- as against `19,62,000/- awarded by Tribunal.
23. Further, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel appearing for claimants, the rate of interest at 6% per annum awarded by Tribunal is on the lower side, as the accident has occurred on 07-02-2012. Therefore, as per the ratio of law laid down by the 34 Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in catena of decisions and also considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it fit and proper to award rate of interest at 9% per annum as against 6% per annum, awarded by Tribunal, on the enhanced compensation.
24. Thus, there would be enhancement of compensation by a sum of `19,93,504/- with 9% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.
25. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the appeal filed by appellants is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 15th February 2013, passed in MVC No.1745/2012, by the XXII Additional Small Causes Judge & Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, is hereby modified, awarding a sum of `39,55,504/- as against `19,62,000/- awarded by Tribunal, with interest at 9% 35 per annum, on the enhanced sum, from the date of petition till the date of realization.
There would be enhancement of compensation by a sum of `19,93,504/- with 9% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.
The second respondent /Insurer is
directed to deposit the enhanced
compensation of `19,93,504/-, with interest thereon at 9% per annum, within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment and award.
On such deposit by the Insurer, a sum of `5,75,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the name of the first appellant- wife of deceased, in Fixed Deposit, in any scheduled/ Nationalized Bank, for a period of ten years, renewable by another ten years, with liberty reserved to her to withdraw the periodical interest.
36A sum of `5,00,000/- each with proportionate interest shall be invested in the names of the second and third appellants - minor children of deceased, in Fixed Deposit, in any scheduled/ Nationalized Bank, till they attain the age of 30 years, with liberty reserved to the mother - appellant No.1 to withdraw the periodical interest till they attain the age of 21 years and thereafter, from 21 years, appellant Nos.2 and 3 are entitled to withdraw the periodical interest till they attain 30 years.
A sum of `3,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the name of the fourth appellant - mother of deceased, in Fixed Deposit, in any scheduled/ Nationalized Bank, for a period of three years, renewable by another three years, with liberty reserved to her to withdraw the periodical interest.
37
Remaining sum of `1,18,504/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the appellant Nos.1 and 4, in equal proportion, immediately.
Office to draw award, accordingly.
SD/-
JUDGE SD/-
JUDGE BMV*