Judgment:
A.P. Bhangale, J.
1. Heard. Admit. Notice to respondent No. 1 (driver of the vehicle) dispensed with.
2. This appeal is directed against judgment and Award dated 23.7.2008 passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amravati in MACP No. 413 of 2005.
3. The facts briefly mentioned are:
On 8.7.2005 deceased Ramesh Bhimraoji Warghe while returning walking towards his house from Zilla Parishad Colony, Amravati was violently dashed from behind by a Tractor bearing registration No. MH27-L-1360 driven rashly and negligently which resulted in serious injuries and consequent death of said Ramesh. The offending Truck was driven by one Tarundas Bansi Wankhede and was owned by one Ishwardas P. Ingale. It was insured with the New India Assurance Company Limited, Amravati during relevant period. The claim was filed by widow and three daughters of the deceased who was aged about 48 years, at the time of accident. The claimants claimed compensation of Rupees Ten lakhs, interest and costs.
4. The claim proceeded ex-parte against the respondent-driver and without Written Statement as against owner of offending motor vehicle. The Insurer contested the claim and denied its liability. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amravati, after considering the evidence led before it had partly allowed the claim in the sum of Rs. 6,84,144/- along with interest at the rate of Rs. 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation inclusive of no fault liability.
5. The appellants aggrieved by the Award preferred the present appeal pleading and claiming enhancement in the sum of compensation awarded.
6. I have heard submissions advanced at the bar on behalf of appellants as also on behalf of Insurer Company. The owner and driver of offending vehicle remained absent and no one appeared on their behalf.
7. It is submitted on behalf of appellants that late Shri Ramesh Bhimrao Warghe possessed agricultural lands at village Sakhari bearing survey numbers 63 and 64 admeasuring 0.81 HR and 1.52 HR respectively while his wife (appellant No. 1) possessed survey Nos. 52 and 53 admeasuring 1.21 HR and 1.62 HR respectively. It is submitted that deceased Ramesh who was in service as class-IV employee in Public Works Department and was earning Rs. 6511/- per month by way of salary. He was also cultivating the agricultural lands described above. Therefore, loss of income on account of loss of help and guidance of deceased in cultivating the agricultural lands ought to have been taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal for deciding the sum o of Just compensation' payable to dependents of deceased Ramesh.
8. Learned Counsel for appellants made reference to the National Insurance Company Limited v. Indira Srivastava and ors reported in 2008 (1) TAC 424 (SC) to argue that Just compensation' is a term which should be assigned a broad meaning to determine issues involved in the matter. It is submitted that 'just compensation' is required to be determined in liberal manner having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case on the basis of entire loss of Dependants due to death of the deceased. Future loss towards the family income is also required to be considered although just compensation is not a bonanza or source of profit. In Jayakodi and Ors. v. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. reported in 2010 ACJ 697 (SC), three-Judge Bench held that so long as the total amount awarded is not less than what is awarded by the court below, there cannot be any objection if the amount is reduced under any particular head. Having regard to the land holding; family background, prospects of earning the Apex Court enhanced compensation to Rs. 3,94,000/- from Rs. 2,51,000/-. The Apex Court also awarded Rs. 5000/- as loss to estate and Rs. 5000/- as funeral expenses as also interest on the sum of Award at the rate of 9% per annum till the date of payment.
9. Strong reliance is placed on the ruling in Smt. Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. reported in 2009 (2) TAC 677 (SC) regarding general principles for fixation of determination of quantum of 'just compensation'.
10. Reliance is also placed upon Managing Director, TNSTC v. K.I. Bindu reported in : AIR 2005 SC 4425 to submit that pains and sufferings of dependents; loss of love and affection; post-mortem; transportation and funeral expenses etc. incurred by the dependants ought to be included in the total sum of compensation. Thus, in the facts of that case Rs. 40,000/- were awarded in addition to compensation calculated for loss of dependency.
11. In Sarla Verma's case (supra) it is held that it is well settled now that claims made by dependents towards pecuniary loss on account of death of victim is determined by ascertaining multiplicand of net annual loss of dependency after deducting self-maintenance or personal expenses of the deceased and then to multiply it by an appropriate multiplier so as to ensure that dependents can get the capital amount that would in normal course yield interest equal to the monthly or yearly dependency for the period dependency expected to last. To explain it in terms of formula:
Monthly earnings of the deceased minus personal expenses/self maintenance depending upon number of dependants in family = loss of monthly dependency x 12 = Annual loss of dependency multiplied by chosen multiplier which is appropriate (as guided in the Sarla Verma's case) = Loss of dependency for expected period plus Funeral expenses plus loss of love and affection plus loss of consortium for widow/ widower as the case may be plus loss of estate = Total compensation for motor vehicle fatal accident claim plus simple interest payable under Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act at 6% from the date of application till realisation plus costs = just and fair compensation irrespective of the fact whether claim in that behalf was raised by claimants or not. See: Ningamma v. United India Insurance Company Limited (para 25). The Court is duty bound to and is entitled to award just compensation irrespective of plea in that behalf.
12. Applying the above principles in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is seen that the deceased victim Ramesh was getting salary of Rs. 6511/- per month. It is also contended that the deceased victim was cultivating agricultural lands and earning income of Rs. 1 lakh per year therefrom. The Tribunal did observe that there are 7/12 extracts of agricultural lands but refused to award compensation on the ground that there is no evidence to show that the deceased was getting income from agricultural land. But the Tribunal appears to have referred to admission elicited from witness Rekha in her cross-examination that her husband was earning agricultural income. According to learned Counsel for respondent-Insurance Company, the income from agricultural lands would continue to remain available to the family of deceased irrespective of his death. Be that as it may, the claimants are surely bound to lose skills of management and guidance from the deceased to cultivate agricultural lands of their family. To that extent, the fact of agricultural holdings of family may be considered and notional loss of Rs. 2000/- per month ought to be considered.
13. Considering the facts and circumstances also the principles stated above, the just compensation can be determined in the present case as mentioned below:
Rs. 6511/- Monthly income by way of salary.Rs. 2000/- Income from agricultural holdings calculated on monthly basis.Rs. 8511/- minus Rs. 2127/- towards 1/4th personal expenses.Rs. 6384 Monthly loss of dependency x 12Rs. 76,608/- Annual loss of dependency x 13Rs. 9,95,904/- Loss of dependency for expected period.Rs. 3,000/- Funeral expenses; transportation.Rs. 5,000/- Loss of consortium for widow.Rs. 5,000/- Loss of estate.Rs. 10,08,904/- Total compensation payable.
In addition to above, appellants will be entitled to simple interest at 6% per annum from the date of claim petition i.e. 23rd December 2005 till realisation of entire amount of compensation together with costs throughout.
14. In the result, appeal is partly allowed with proportionate costs throughout. Respondents are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs. 10,08,904/- towards compensation to the appellants together with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till realisation of compensation amount. The amount of compensation paid accordingly shall be proportionately distributed to the claimants-petitioners and secured properly by the Tribunal. Impugned Award stands modified in terms of this order.