Judgment:
N.K. Patil, J.
1. This appeal by the claimants is directed against the judgment and award dated 18th November 2005, passed in M.V.C. No. 1835/2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore ('Tribunal' for short) for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 4,65,000/- with 7% interest awarded in favour of the claimants appellants as against their claim for Rupees One Crore is Inadequate, particularly, so far as the compensation awarded towards loss of dependency is concerned.
2. The claimants appellants are parents of the deceased son Sujay Krishna. He was aged about 21 years as on the date of the accident and was a B.E. graduate in Mechanical Engineering. That on the most unfortunate date, i.e. on 27-11-2001, at about 7:55 hours, the deceased was a pillion rider of the Motor Cycle bearing Registration No. KA-02/W-2209 being driven by his friend and was proceeding towards Engineers Study Circle at Sabari complex, Residency Road. When they reached the B.R.V. Junction, on seeking the red signal, the rider, Pradeep stopped the Motor Cycle. But, when the red signal was still ON, a BMTC Pushpak bus came from behind and dashed against the standing motor cycle in which the deceased was a pillion rider. On account of the said accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and later on succumbed to the same.
3. On account of the death of the deceased as a result of the grievous injuries sustained in the accident, the appellants herein, being his parents filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of a sum of Rupees One Crore against the respondent - Corporation. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 18th November 2005. 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 Rs. 4,65,000/- with interest at 7% per annum from the date of petition till its deposit in the Tribunal. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants are in appeal before this Court, seeking enhancement of compensation.
4. We have heard the learned senior Counsel appearing for the appellants and learned Counsel for respondent - Corporation for considerable length of time.
5. The principal submission canvassed by learned senior Counsel appearing for the appellants is that, the deceased Sujay Krishna was a Graduate in Mechanical Engineering with high distinction throughout and had also cleared the Entrance Test for IGNIIT for admission to join the Elite Club of IGNIIT. To substantiate the said submission, he has produced the Certificate issued by the NIIT. Relying on the said Certificate, he submitted that, as per the opinion of the NIIT, if the deceased had produced the Engineering Degree Certificate with distinction, he would have been placed in one of the top Indian IT Companies for Professional Practice and would have got a stipend of Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- and after the Probationary period, would have earned a place in one of the reputed IT Companies with salary of Rs. 15.000/- to Rs. 20.000/- per month. Therefore, he submitted that, this aspect of the matter has not been looked into nor considered nor appreciated by the Tribunal and without assigning any cogent reasons, has proceeded to take the monthly income of the deceased only at Rs. 6,000/-. Therefore, the compensation of Rs. 3.96,000/- awarded towards loss of dependency, taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 6,000/- per month, is highly inadequate and needs considerable enhancement. Further he submitted that, the Tribunal was also not right in deducting half of the income towards the personable expenses of the deceased, in the light of the latest judgment of Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Company case, wherein it is held that, deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses is the ordinary rule in India. Therefore, he vehemently submitted that, just and reasonable compensation may be awarded towards loss of dependency by taking the appropriate income of the deceased.
6. As against this, the learned Counsel for the Corporation, inter alia, contended and substantiated that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and does not call for interference. Further, he submitted that, the Tribunal looking into all the relevant aspects of the matter has awarded just and reasonable compensation and hence, the impugned judgment and award does not call for interference.
7. After careful consideration of the submission of the learned Counsel for the parties, after evaluation of the original records available on file, threadbare, and after perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the only point that arise for our consideration is as to:
Whether the compensation awarded by Tribunal towards loss of dependency needs enhancement?
Indisputably, the deceased Sujay Krishna has succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident that occurred on the unfortunate day, on 27-11-2001, for no fault of him. The parents having lost their son, filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rupees One Crore against the Corporation. The Tribunal, without any justification and without assigning valid reasons, has taken the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 6,000/-, completely ignoring the fact that, he was a highly meritorious student throughout his educational career and possessed a high distinction with 82% in the 7th and 8th Semester B.E.(Mech.). Further, the Tribunal also lost sight of the fact that, after completion of the Engineering course, the deceased had cleared the Entrance for joining the Elite Club of IGNIIT. Exs.P17 to P24 speak about the high academic excellence of the deceased and various other activities in the field of computers. It is appropriate to reiterate the statements made in the Certificate Ex.P24 issued by the MIT that, if the deceased had produced the Engineering Degree Certificate with distinction, he would have been placed in one of the top Indian IT Companies for Professional Practice and would have got a stipend of Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- and after the Probationary period, would have earned a place in one of the reputed IT Companies with salary of Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- per month. It is relevant to note that, the said Certificate is issued by the competent authority of the NIIT, which is one of the premier institutions for academic excellence and the same cannot be ignored. Therefore, having regard to all these vital aspects, we have no hesitation in taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 12,000/-.
8. Regarding the deduction of 1/3rd of the income towards the personal expenses of the deceased, we are supported by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Limited v. Deo Patodi and Ors. : AIR 2009 SC 2442, wherein at paragraph 14, it is observed that deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses is the ordinary rule in India and in the facts and circumstances, the same should be applied. Further, it is observed that, a just and reasonable compensation however, depends upon the fact-situation obtaining in each case and no hard and fast rule, therefore, can be laid down. A golden balance must be struck somewhere, to arrive at a reasonable and fair mesne. Accordingly, having regard to the status of the family of the deceased, particularly bearing in mind the age of the parents, who are respectively 62 years and 54 years, it would be highly justifiable for us to deduct 1/3rd of the income towards the personal expenses of the deceased. Therefore, in the light of the observations made in the judgment of the Apex Court (supra) coupled with the fact-situation of the case on hand, we have no hesitation in deducting 1/3rd of the income towards the personal expenses of the deceased. Accordingly, we take the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 12,000/- and after deducting 1/3rd, we get Rs. 8,000/-per month. Taking the monthly income at Rs. 8,000/-, adopting appropriate multiplier of '11' having regard to the age of the younger parent, mother, we award a sum of Rs. 10,56,000/- (i.e. Rs. 8,000/- x 12 x 11) towards loss of dependency instead of Rs. 3.96.000/- awarded by Tribunal.
9. However, so far as the compensation awarded towards the conventional heads is concerned, the same is just and proper and does not call for interference.
10. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal filed by appellants is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal dated 18th November 2005 in M.V.C. No. 1835/2002 is hereby modified only in so far as Loss of dependency is concerned, by awarding a sum of Rs. 10,56,000/- as against Rs. 3,96,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at 6% per annum on the enhanced sum, from the date of petition till the date of realization.
The respondent Corporation is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 6,60,000/- with 6% interest thereon, within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment and award.
Immediately on deposit of the enhanced sum with interest by the Corporation, a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-shall be kept in Fixed Deposit Account in the name of the second appellant, mother of the deceased in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank for a period of five years, with permission to her to withdraw the quarterly interest.
The remaining sum of Rs. 3,60,000/- with interest shall be released in favour of both the appellants in equal proportion, immediately.
Office is directed to draw the award, accordingly.