S PARVATHI Vs. R PANDURANGASETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS miscellaneous first appeal arises from the judgment and award dated 16. 4. 1994, delivered by the motor accidents claims tribunal, chitradurga (addl. District judge), awarding in total, a sum of Rs. 1,30,000, with interest at 6 per cent per annum thereon from the date of petition till the date of payment.

(2.) THE claimant having felt dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded has come up with this appeal. The facts in nutshell are that: the case of the petitioner as alleged and as has been found to have been proved as per findings of the tribunal is; that thippeswamy, husband of petitioner No. 1, died on account of accident that had taken place on 20. 9. 88, at about 12. 10 p. m. The tribunal found that the cause of accident has been the rash and negligent driving of the motor vehicle No. Mek 9099, by the driver thereof at a high speed, and according to it on account of the accident which has been the result of that negligent and rash driving of the vehicle, the claimant No. 1's husband suffered injuries resulting in his death. This finding has not been challenged by anybody, so it is binding and final. We start from this stage. The tribunal has awarded the compensation assessing the loss of dependency to the tune of Rs. 7,200 per year multiplied by 14. Thus amounting to Rs. 1,00,800.

(3.) WITH regard to loss of dependency, the learned counsel for the appellants has contended that tribunal has assessed the net income of the claimant to be Rs. 30 per day and this assessment is on a very lower side. Learned counsel contended that the uncontroverted evidence of pw 1 reveals and proves that the average sale income of the deceased was Rs. 150 per day and this should have been accepted by the tribunal, but tribunal illegally assumed the gross sale to be Rs. 90 per day, and wrongly assumed that the costs of raw material would be 2/3rd of the sale price. Learned counsel contended that if there be given any margin to exaggeration of income, it could not be more than 10 to 20 per cent, if it be taken at all, otherwise daily average sale had been to the tune of Rs. 150. Learned counsel contended that the tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 14. The learned counsel urged that the age of the deceased at the time of accident being 30 years, the proper multiplier to be applied would have been 16 or 17. This contention of the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has been hotly contested on behalf of the respondents. No doubt, we may assume that there would or might have been some exaggeration in the income being stated by pw 2, but that exaggeration could not be so high, as to deem it that daily sale was for sums lower than Rs. 100. Therefore, it appears just and proper that if we take that exaggeration might have been to the tune of 10 per cent to 20 per cent then it would be reasonable to hold daily gross sale income would have been Rs. 120 per day. If out of Rs. 120, we take 50 per cent of the cost of material, then the daily income would be Rs. 60 and we reduce it 1/3rd, i. e. , by Rs. 20 per day, by way of deduction towards personal expenses of deceased from every day's income, the deceased must have been providing the income for living to the family, amounting on an average to Rs. 40 per day. If Rs. 40 is multiplied by 30 days, the monthly loss of dependency will come to Rs. 1,200 and its being multiplied by 12 (months), yearly loss of dependency will come to Rs. 14,400. The age of the deceased being 30, we think it would be proper to apply the multiplier of 16 to it, to arrive at the loss of dependency, and it brings loss of dependency to Rs. 2,30,400 in round figure to Rs. 2,31,000. In our opinion the claimants-appellants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,31,000 towards loss of dependency. As regards loss of consortium, it would be just and proper to assess it and to award Rs. 10,000 under this head and towards loss to estate, we think the proper sum to be awarded is Rs. 10,000 and so under these two heads also compensation which has been awarded by tribunal to the tune of Rs. 7,500 each is enhanced to Rs. 10,000 for each head, i. e. , Rs. 10,000 for loss of consortium and Rs. 10,000 for loss to estate. The tribunal has awarded Rs. 5,000 towards pain and suffering, we do not think proper and necessary to enhance the amount under this head. That as regards the sum of Rs. 1,000 awarded by the tribunal towards medical expenses and Rs. 1,000 towards funeral expenses, these sums appear to be on the lower side. In our opinion, it would be just and proper to award Rs. 2,000 towards medical expenses and Rs. 2,000 towards funeral and last rites.