Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI
M.F.A.NO. 4986/2020 (MV-D) C/W M.F.A.NOS. 3170/2020C/W 3178/2020 (MV-D)
IN M.F.A.NO. 4986 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, N.W.K.R.T.C. CENTRAL OFFICE GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI-580 030 NOW THROUGH CHIEF LAW OFFICER N.W.K.R.T.C. BENGALURU.
… APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NAGARAJA K., ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING))
AND:
1 . CHANDRAPPA S/O BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
2 . SMT. SUMITHRAMMA W/O CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
3 . SUNITHA D/O CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
2 ALL ARE R/O HOSAHALLI VILLAGE, HARIHARA TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 601.
4 . PRAKASH JARIYAPPA S/O JARIYAPPA DRIVER OF BUS N.W.K.R.T.C NO.KA-25-F-3016 BELONGING TO THE MANAGING DIRECTOR N.W.K.R.T.C. CENTRAL OFFICE GOKUL ROAD HUBLI-580 030.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MARUTHI G.B., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING) VIDE ORDER DATED 21.12.2020, NOTICE TO R4 DISPENED WITH)
THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.10.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.878/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HARIHAR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN M.F.A.NO. 3170 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
1 . CHANDRAPPA S/O BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
2 . SMT. SUMITHRAMMA S/O CHANRAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
3 . SUNITHA D/O CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
ALL ARE R/O HOSAHALLI VILLAGE,
3 HARIHARA TALUK DAVANAGERE -577 601.
… APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. MARUTHI G.B., ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING))
AND:
1 . PRAKASH JARIYAPPA S/O JARIYAPPA DRIVER OF BUS N.W.K.R.T.C NO.KA-25-F-3016 BELONGING TO THE MANAGING DIRECTOR N.W.K.R.T.C. CENTRAL OFFICE GOKUL ROAD HUBLI-580030
2 . THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, N.W.K.R.T.C. CENTRAL OFFICE GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI-580 030 BUS NO.KA-25-F-3016.
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (PHYSICAL HEARING) VIDE ORDER DATED 12.03.2021, NOTICE TO R1 DISPENED WITH)
THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.10.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.878/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HARIHAR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN M.F.A.NO. 3178 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
1 . CHANDRAPPA S/O BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
4 2 . SMT. SUMITHRAMMA S/O CHANRAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
3 . SUNITHA D/O CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
ALL ARE R/O HOSAHALLI VILLAGE, HARIHARA TALUK DAVANAGERE -577 601.
… APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. MARUTHI G.B., ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING))
AND:
1 . PRAKASH JARIYAPPA S/O JARIYAPPA DRIVER OF BUS N.W.K.R.T.C NO.KA-25-F-3016 BELONGING TO THE MANAGING DIRECTOR N.W.K.R.T.C. CENTRAL OFFICE GOKUL ROAD HUBLI-580030
2 . THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, N.W.K.R.T.C. CENTRAL OFFICE GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI-580 030 BUS NO.KA-25-F-3016.
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (PHYSICAL HEARING) VIDE ORDER DATED 12.03.2021, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENED WITH)
THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(01) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.10.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.877/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
5 HARIHAR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, B. VEERAPPA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
MFA No.4986/2020 is filed by N.W.K.R.T.C. for reduction. MFA No.3170/2020 and M.F.A.No.3178/2020 are filed by the legal representatives of the deceased Basavaraj and Manjunath for enhancement against the common judgment and award dated 31.10.2019 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Harihara, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’ for short) awarding a total compensation of Rs.18,11,220/- in MVC No.878/2011 and Rs.47,74,728/- in MVC No.877/2017 respectively with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition and till the date of realization.
It is the case of the claimants that on 13.09.2017 at about 1.45 p.m. both the brothers i.e., Bsavaraju and Manjunath, aged about 28 years and 26 years were traveling in a motorbike bearing registration No.KA-17-ER/6850 and
6 were returning from Harihara to their village and when they were near Halasabalu village, Rajanahalli curve, on Puna- Bengaluru, N.H.4, the driver i.e., respondent No.1 of the NWKRTC bus belonging to respondent No.2 bearing registration No.KA-25-F/3016 came from the opposite side, in rash and negligent manner endangering human life and hit the motorbike in which both deceased brothers were traveling. As a result of which, Basavaraju and Manjunath sustained grievous injuries all over their body and Manjunath died on the spot; whereas Basavaraju was shifted to SSIMS hospital, Davanagere and thereafter to Kasturiba Hospital, Manipal and he succumbed to the injuries on 23.09.2017. After post mortem, the dead bodies were handed over to their relatives. It is their further case that the deceased Basavaraju was working as an agriculturist and doing milk vending business and earning Rs.30,000/- per month and he was aged about 29 years; whereas, deceased Manjunath was earlier working as a police constable and after resigning from service on
7 11.05.2017 and he has selected as Sub Inspector of police on 22.07.2017 and the unfortunate accident occurred on 13.09.2017 and subsequently, final selection was published on 23.11.2017 and came to be issued on 30.11.2017. It is the further case of the claimant that he was earning Rs.36,000/- per month. The claimants are father, mother and unmarried sister of the deceased brothers depending on their income. Therefore, claiming compensation, they have filed the claim petitions.
In response to the notice of the claim petitions, respondent No.1 was served, but unrepresented not filed any objections. Respondent No.2-insurance company filed objections to both the claim petitions and denied the averments made in the claim petitions contending that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased and not on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. It is further denied the age, occupation and income of the deceased persons. It further
8 contended that the driver of the bus after following the procedure carefully driving the bus. It has contended that the driver of the motor bike was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident and was not wearing helmets and violated the conditions of the policy, hence the claimants are not entitled for any compensation as prayed for in the claim petitions.
Based on the aforesaid averments, the tribunal framed the following issues: In MVC No.877/2017: 1) Whether the petitioners prove that, the deceased Manjunatha died due to rash or negligent driving of the KSRTC Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-25/F-3016 as alleged in the petition?
2) Whether the respondent No.2 proves that, the accident was happened due to carelessness and rash and negligent act of the bike rider? 3) Whether the respondent No.2 proves that, the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
4) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so to what extent?
In MVC No.878/2017: 1) Whether the petitioners prove that, the deceased Basavaraja died due to rash or negligent driving of the KSRTC Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-25/F-3016 as alleged in the petition?
2) Whether the respondent No.2 proves that, the accident was happened due to carelessness and rash and negligent act of the bike rider?
3) Whether the respondent No.2 proves that, the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
4) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so to what extent?
5) What order or decree?
In order to prove the case of the claimants, third claimant has been examined as PW-1, a witness as PW-2 and marked material documents - Exs.P.1 to P.26. Respondent examined as RW-1 and marked the material documents as Exs.R.1. to R.3.
Considering both oral and documentary evidence on record, the tribunal recorded a finding that the claimants
10 have proved that the deceased Manjunatha and Basavaraju died due to the accident occurred on 13.09.2017 on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the NWKRTC bus bearing No.KA-25-F-3016. Respondent No.2-NWKRTC failed to prove that the accident occurred due to the carelessness and rash and negligent riding on the part of the rider of the motorbike and further recorded a finding that the claim petitions are not bad for non-joinder of necessary party and claimants are entitled to compensation, accordingly, the tribunal proceeded to award compensation of Rs.47,89,728/- in MVC NO.877/2017 and Rs.18,11,220/- in MVC No.878/2017 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till payment.
The NWKRTC has filed MFA No.4986/2020 challenging the same only insofar as compensation awarded under the impugned judgment and award dated 31.10.2019 made in MVC No.877/2017 in respect of deceased Manjunath.
11 The claimants/ appellants have filed M.F.A. No.3178/2020 and M.F.A. No.3170/2020 for enhancement of compensation.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
Shri.K Nagaraj, learned counsel for the NWKRTC, who filed MFA 4986/2020 has contended that the impugned judgment and award passed by the tribunal granting Rs.47,89,728/- is erroneous contrary to the material on record, cannot be sustained. He would further contend that the tribunal has not considered the deceased Manjunatha was working as a police constable and not deducted the professional tax, so also he was a bachelor, the tribunal has not deducted personal expenses i.e., 50% as held by Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation an Another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. He would further contend that the tribunal erred in taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.25,000/- and further contended that the
12 deceased was unmarried and aged about 26 years, hence, the tribunal has wrongly deducted 2/3 as his contribution to family. He would contend that the unmarried sister is not at all dependant on the deceased, therefore, he has sought to allow the appeal filed by the NWKRTC.
Per Contra, Shri. Maruthi G.B., learned counsel for the appellants/claimants in MFA No.3178/2020 contended that though the tribunal has taken the income of the deceased Manjunatha at Rs.25,000/- per month. The deceased was selected as Sub Inspector of police on 15.11.2017 and resigned form post of police constable on 11.05.2017 and the accident occurred on 13.09.2017 and appointment order came to be issued on 30.11.2017.Therfore income of the deceased should be taken as Rs.36,300/- and taking into consideration the age of the deceased as 26 years, the tribunal was not justified in taking 40% towards future prospects, but it should be 50%. He further contended that the tribunal was not
13 awarded any compensation towards loss of consortium, therefore, he sought to allow the appeal.
He further contended that the claimants in the appeal MFA No.3170/2020 in respect of deceased Basvaraju is concerned, he is an agriculturist and doing milk vending business. His income was Rs.30,000/- per month and he was aged about 29 years as on the date of the accident, but the tribunal has taken at Rs.8,000/- per month, which is on the lower side and the tribunal has taken 40% towards future prospects instead of 50%. Further the tribunal has failed to award any consortium to the parents; therefore he sought to allow the appeals.
In view of the rival contention urged by the learned counsel for the parties, the points that arise for consideration in the present appeals are: 1) Whether the Managing Director of NWKRTC/appellant has made out a case to interfere with the impugned judgment and award passed by the tribunal awarding
14 compensation of Rs.47,74,728/- with interest at 6% per annum in the case of deceased Manjunatha in MVC No.877/2017 in the facts and circumstances of the case?
2) Whether the claimants in MFA No.3178/2020 arising out of the death of Manjunatha have made out a case for further enhancement of the compensation in the present facts and circumstances of the case?
3) Whether the claimants in MFA No.3170/2020 arising out of the death of Basavaraju have made out a case for further enhancement of the compensation in the present facts and circumstances of the case?
We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the entire material including the original records.
It is an undisputed fact that the deceased Manjunatha and Basavaraju are the sons of appellants No.1 and 2 and brothers of appellant No.3. Both the brothers were proceeding on a motorbike belonging to Manjunatha bearing registration No.KA- 17-ER-6850 and were returning to their
15 village from Harihara and on the unfortunate date i.e., on 13.09.2017 the accident occurred at about 1.45 p.m. due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the NWKRTC bus bearing No KA-25-F 3016. The same is evidenced by material documents Exs.P.1 to P.8. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the NWKRTC is not in dispute and not challenged by the NWKRTC or the driver of the bus. It is also not in dispute that according to the claimants the deceased Basavaraju was an agriculturist and doing milk vending business and earning Rs.30,000/- per month. Except the record of rights, no other documents were produced by the claimants. The deceased was aged about 29 years at the time of accident. The tribunal proceeded to assess the income of Basavaraju at Rs.8,000/-per month.
It is also not in dispute that the deceased Manjunatha was working as a police constable and getting salary of Rs.23,087/- per month. Later he resigned from the post of police constable on 11.05.2017 and he was selected as
16 Sub-Inspector of Police and provisional list came to be issued on 22.07.2017 and he died on 13.09.2017 and final selection list came to be issued on 15.11.2017 and appointment order was issued on 30.11.2017. According to the claimants Manjunatha was working in the police department and Basavaraja was an agriculturist and doing milk vending business and they were maintaining the family. The claimants are father, mother and unmarried sister depends upon the income of the deceased. The accident is not in dispute. The negligence on the part of the driver of the NWKRTC bus is also not in dispute. The only dispute is with regard to the compensation of Rs.47,49,728/- awarded in respect of the deceased Manjunatha.
Considering the materials on record, the appeal of the claimants in MFA No.3178/2020 arising out of MVC No.877/2017 and it is an undisputed fact that the deceased Manjunatha was working as a police constable and aged about 28 years and getting monthly salary of Rs.23,087/- as per the
17 salary certificate produced before the Tribunal. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants for enhancement that the income of the deceased should be taken as Rs.36,300/- to the post of Sub-Inspector of police, who is aged about 26 years and towards loss of ‘future prospects’ the tribunal has taken 40%, but, it should have been 50%.
The contention of the learned counsel Sri. K Nagaraj, for NWKRTC, in MFA No.3178/2020 and the appellant in MFA No.4986/2020, the income of the deceased Manjunatha could not be taken as Rs.25,000/-, as contended has resigned from the post of police constable on 11.05.2017 before the final selection made on 20.11.2017, he died on account of the accident on 13.09.2017, therefore, future income cannot be taken as on the date of the death of deceased. As on the date of accident income of the deceased was Rs.23,087/-. The tribunal has considered it as Rs.25,000/-, as already stated supra there is no deduction towards professional tax and personal expenses.
Having given our thoughtful consideration, it is not in dispute even as on the date of death of deceased Manjunatha on 13.09.2017, he has resigned from the post of police constable on 11.05.2017. The fact remains that he was working as a police constable is not in dispute. The tribunal ought to have been taken the loss of income of the deceased Manjunath as Rs.23,087/-, instead of Rs.25,000/- per month, which is erroneous. It is also not in dispute that the age of the deceased was 26 years. The tribunal proceeded to take future prospects of the deceased at 40% ignoring the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY VS. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS’, reported in ‘AIR 2017 SCC 5157’, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the future prospects should be taken at 50%, if the age of the deceased was below 40 years, same has been ignored by the tribunal. The income of the deceased is taken at Rx.23,087/-, then we have to deduct 1/3 towards ‘personal expenses’ in terms of the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
19 in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and Others reported in 2019 AIAR (Civil) 171, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court relying upon the earlier decision in the case of Sarla Verma. At paragraph No.8.2 it has held as under: “ 8.2 With respect to the issue of deduction from the income of the deceased, the Insurance Company contended that the deduction ought to have been ½, and not 1/3rd, since the deceased was a bachelor. This issue has been dealt with in paragraph 32 of the judgment in Sarla Verma (supra) wherein this Court took the view that where the family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third, as contribution to the family will be taken as two third. Considering that the deceased was living in a village, where he was residing with his aged father who was about 65 years old, and Respondent No. 2 an unmarried sister, the High Court correctly considered them to be dependents of the deceased and made a deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased.”
20 19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Birender and Others reported in (2020) 11 SCC 356, while considering the dictum in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) the constitutional bench stated supra, adverted to the dictum in the case of Sarla Verma with regard to deduction of personal expenses in case of a bachelor and in paragraph No.20, it has held as under: “20. Similarly, the High Court despite having taken note of the submission made by Respondents 1 and 2 that the deduction for personal expenses of the deceased should be reckoned only as one-third (1/3rd) amount for determining loss of dependency, maintained the deduction of 50% towards that head as ordered by the Tribunal. This Court in Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] , in para 37, adverted to the dictum of this Court in Sarla Verma v. DTC [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121, para 30 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002] with approval, wherein it is held that if the dependent family members are 2 to 3, as in this case, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be taken as one-third (1/3rd). In other words, the deduction towards personal expenses to the extent of 50% is excessive and not just and proper considering the fact that Respondents 1 and 2 along with their respective families were staying with the deceased at the relevant time and were largely dependent on her income.”
Though learned counsel for the NWKRTC contended that in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court considering Sarla Verma’s case, has stated that 50% towards personal expenses should be deducted, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the N.W.K.R.T.C. in view of the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Magma’s case (supra) and latest judgment in the case of National Insurance Company Company Vs. Birendra & Ors.(supra), where Hon’ble Supreme Court on considering the judgment of the constitutional bench in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and also Sarla Verma is of the considered opinion that, if dependant family members are 2 to 3, deduction towards personal expenses and living expenses of the deceased should be taken as 1/3. Inotherwords, deduction to the extent of 50% towards personal expenses is excessive and not just and proper. Considering the fact that claimants were residing along with the deceased at the relevant point of time, therefore, they were depending on the income of the deceased.
22 Admittedly, in the present case, claimants No.1 and 2 are father and mother and appellant No.3 -unmarried elder sister of the deceased. In the cross-examination of R.W.1 on behalf of the NWKSRTC, it is admitted that he has not challenged the final report. It is not disputed that the father, mother and sister of the deceased have filed claim petitions. He has also admitted that he has no knowledge about their family and also the income.
If we take the income of the deceased Manjunatha as per last drawn salary slip, which reveals Rs.23,087/- as salary for the month of April 2017. The annual income would be Rs.2,77,044/-. No income tax standard deduction upto Rs.2,50,000/-. He has to pay 10% income tax on Rs.27,044/-, which comes to Rs.2,704/-. Out of Rs.23,087/- Professional tax Rs.200/- and monthly tax Rs.225/- is to be deducted, the monthly income comes to Rs.22,662/-. Rs.22,662/- + 50% (Rs.11,331/- towards future prospects) = Rs.33,993/- as per the decision of the Hon’ble
23 Supreme Court in Pranya Sethi’s Case supra. The deceased was aged about 26 years as on the date of the accident. The total income would be Rs.33,993/- and if 1/3 is to be deducted, it would be Rs.22,662/-. The proper multiplier corresponding to age of deceased would be ‘18’, then the total loss of dependency would be Rs.22,662/- X 12 X 17= Rs.46,23,048/-.
The tribunal has not awarded any of compensation towards consortium. As per the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Pranay Sethi (supra) and latest judgment in the case of Magma(supra) Rs.40,000/- each to the parents and Rs.40,000/- to the unmarried sister towards consortium has to be awarded. Further compensation towards loss of estate and funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- each is to be awarded to the claimants which comes to Rs.30,000/-.
After reassessing the entire material on record, we are of the considered opinion, in the case of Manjunatha i.e., in MFA No.3178/2020, the claimants are entitled to just
24 compensation of Rs.47,73,048/-. It is submitted that interim compensation of Rs.15,000/- has already been paid. Therefore, the same is to be deducted, i.e., (Rs.47,73,048 – 15,000/-)= Rs.47,58,048/- on the following heads:
Towards Loss of Dependency Rs.46,23,048/- 2. Towards Parental Consortium Rs.80,000/- 3. Towards Consortium(sister) Rs.40,000/- 4. Towards Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- 5. Towards Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
Rs.47,73,048/-
Less Interim compensation paid Rs. 15,000/-
TOTAL Rs.47,58,048/-
The appeal filed by the claimant in MFA No.3170/2020 in respect of Basavaraju, the tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- p.m.
The learned counsel for the claimants also contended that he was earning Rs.30,000/-, but no documents were produced. Considering the age of the deceased as 29 years at the time of the accident i.e., 13.09.2017 and in view of the chart prepared by Lok Adalat the minimum notional income should be taken at Rs.11,000/-. Learned counsel contended
25 that the appellants are entitled to 50%. We decline to grant 50% on the ground that he was not holding any permanent employment, but, he was an agriculturist. Still 40% taken by the tribunal was not questioned by NWKRTC. Accordingly, if we take Rs.11,000/- as monthly income of the deceased, the tribunal is justified in awarding future prospects at 40%. If the income of the deceased Basavaraj is taken as Rs.11,000/- + Rs.4,400/-(40% towards future prospects) = Rs.15,400/- which is rounded off to Rs.15,500/- and if we deduct 1/3 as per the decision of Sarla Verma, Magma and Pranay Sethi stated supra, the actual income would be 1,02,666/- X 12 X 17 = Rs.20,94,399/-. The claimants are entitled to Rs.20,94,399/- towards loss of dependency.
Further claimants No.1 and 2 are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards parental consortium and claimant No.3-unmarried sister is also entitled to Rs.40,000/-. The claimants together entitled for loss of estate and funeral
26 expenses Rs.15,000/- each. The claimants are also entitled to Rs.2,58,156/- towards medical expenses.
After re-assessing the entire material on record, the claimants are entitled for a just compensation of Rs.25,02,555/- as against Rs.18,11,220/- awarded by the tribunal under the following heads: 1. Towards Loss of Dependency Rs.20,94,399/- 2. Towards Parental Consortium Rs.80,000/- 3. Towards Consortium (sister) Rs.40,000/- 4. Towards Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- 5. Towards Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- 6. Medical expenses Rs.2,58,156/-
TOTAL Rs.25,02,555/- Less compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs.18,11,220/- Enhanced Compensation Rs.6,91,335/-
For the reasons stated above, we answer the first point in the affirmative, holding that the appellant-Managing Director, NWKSRTC in MFA No. 4986/2020 has made out a case to interfere and modify the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.877/2017 awarding total compensation of Rs.47,74,728/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
27 29. The second point raised in the present appeal is answered partly in the affirmative holding that the claimants in MFA No.3178/2020 arising out of the death of the deceased has made out a case to modify the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
The third point raised in the present appeal is answered in the affirmative holding that the claimants in MFA No.3170/2020 have made out a case for further enhancement of compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 31. In view of the above, appeal filed by the NWKSRTC in MFA No.4986/2020, and MFA No.3178/2020 are hereby allowed in part. The Impugned judgment and award dated 31.10.2019 passed by the Tribunal dated 31.10.2019 made in MVC No.877/2017 are hereby modified and the claimants are entitled to the total compensation of Rs.47,58,048/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
Appeal No.3170/2020 is allowed in part. Impugned judgment and award dated 31.10.2019 passed in MVC No.878/2017 is hereby modified and the claimants are entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.6,91,335/- (Rs.25,02,555/- – Rs.18,11,220/-) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
The apportionment and disbursement of the enhanced compensation shall be in terms of the award passed by the tribunal.
Sd/- JUDGE
Sd/- JUDGE Psg*