Judgment:
N. Kumar, J.
1. This is a claimants' appeal seeking enhancement of compensation for the death of the lone bread earner of the family.
2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition.
3. The claimant is the young widow, etaimanis-2 and 5 are minor children and claixoants-3 and 4 are the parents of the deceased Dushyanth, who died in a motor vehicle accident. On 25.10.2006 at about 7.30 p.m when deceased Dushyanth was driving the Maruthi Van bearing CTA No. 2779 along with his friend on Hassan-Behir Road, near the tend of Papuswamy at Angadibaili, a Jorry bearing registration No. KA-13-B-7000 driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the Mamri Van. The deceased and his friend Raghu died at the spot The deceased was an agriculturist, he was doing earpentiy work and he was also a business man. He was earning Rs. 15000-00 per month. Therefore the claimants filed a claim petition seeking compensation in a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs.
4. After service of notice, the owner of the lorry did not contest. Therefore he was placed exparte, The Insurance Company entered appearance and filed detailed written statement and contested the claim. However, they did not dispute the accident nor the insurance coverage.
5. On the aforesaid pleadings the Tribunal framed three issues. To substantiate their claim, the first claimant-Roopa was examined as P.W-1, they examined Annaji, an eye witness es P.W-2, 12 documents were produced as Exs,P-1 to P-13. On behalf of respondents no oral evidence was adduced. But by consent of parties insurance policy was marked as Ex. R-1.
6. The Tribunal on consideration of the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence on record held that the accident was on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry in question and therefore the claimants have established actionable negligence. Thereafter it took note of the evidence of the widow who has deposed to the effect that her husband was a carpenter by profession, be was also an agriculturist and a business man and be was having an income of Rs. 15,000-00 per month. As no evidence was adduced to substantiate the said contention, the Tribunal took the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,300-00, deducting 1/3rd of the same towards the personal expenses of the deceased and adopting the multiplier of 17, it awarded a sum of Rs. 4,48,800-00 towards loss of dependency, it also awarded Rs. 38,000-00 under conventional heads. Thus, in all Rs. 4,86,800-00 with interest at 6% from the date of petition till the date of payment was awarded as global compensation.
7. Aggrieved by the said award, the claimants are in appeal.
8. The learned Counsel for the appellants assailing the impugned award contended that the accident is of the year 2006. The deceased was working as a carpenter, he was also an agriculturist and a business man. In the nature of things, it is not possible to produce any documents evidencing the income. However, one could take note of the income of a carpenter who was also doing agricultural work when he bad no carpentry work. Therefore, he contended that the Tribunal committed serious error in taking only Rs. 3,300-00 as the income of the deceased.
9, There is some substance in the said contention. Though the first claimant had deposed (hat her husband was having the income of Rs. 15,000-00, in the absence of any material on record to substantiate the said claim, it is not possible to accept that evidence. But nonetheless, the accident was of the year 2006. Even the income of an unskilled worker would be taken as Rs. 3,000-00, It is not in dispute that the deceased was a carpenter. Even assuming that the carpenter will not have work all the 365 days, the income of a carpenter per day is not less than Rs. 3000 in the year 2006. Making provision for leave days, as he was also involved in agricultural work and was carrying on business as well, we deem it proper to take his income at Rs. 4,500-00 per month. Deducting 1/3rd of the same towards his personal expenses, applying the multiplier of 18, we award a sum of Rs. 6,48,000-00 under the beading of loss of dependency. To that we would Jike to add Rs. 52,000-00 under conventional heads as the two minor children and parents have been denied love and affection, whereas the young widow has been deprived of the company for the rest of her life. In that view of the matter, we deem it proper to award Rs. 7 lakhs as global compensation with interest at 6% from the date of petition till the date of payment. Hence, we pass the following order.
Appeal is allowed in part.
In substitution of the award of the Tribunal, we award a sum of Rs. 7 lakhs as global compensation with interest at 6% from the date of petition till the date of payment The aforesaid amount of compensation shall be distributed m the following maimer.
Rs.2,00,000-00 shall be paid to Roopa, the first claimant, RsJ,50,000-00 each to daimants-2 and 5 the minor daughters and Rs. 1,00,000-00 each to father and mother of the deceased.
The aforesaid amount which is apportioned to each, of them shall be kept infixed deposit in a Nationalised Bank with interest for a period of five years renewable thereafter till the minors attain the age of majority.
The first claimant is permitted to withdraw the periodical interest accrued not only on her deposit but also on the deposit of her minor children. The parents are also permitted to withdraw the periodical interest accrued on their deposit
Parties to bear their own costs.