Manjunath, J.:—
This appeal is by the K.S.R.T.C The respondents 1 to 8 presented a claim petition claiming compensation on account of death of one Shivanna who was the brother of the claimants. He died in a road traffic accident on 21.6.94 at about 7.10 P.M near K.E.B Office on NH-4 at Mulbagal. He was a passenger in a Bus bearing No. MYF 7365 owned by the appellant. The driver of the bus dashed the bus against a parked lorry bearing No. KA 19-3754. Due to the said accident, Shivanna died on the spot. The respondents claimants filed a petition claiming compensation on account of the death of said Shivanna. According to them, he was aged about 30 years and was a promising agriculturist. In addition to that he was also doing milk vending business. According to them, he was getting an income of Rs. 5,000/- per month. The tribunal after appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties, held that the deceased was getting an income of Rs. 2,400/- per month and out of which 1/3rd amount is deducted towards his personal expenses and then applying the multiplier of 15, a sum of Rs. 2,88,000/- is arrived at towards loss of dependency. In addition to that, the tribunal has also awarded Rs. 10,000/- towards shock, agony, sufferings and love and affection and Rs. 3,000/- towards funeral expenses. The K.S.R.T.C is also directed to pay 9% interest per annum. Being aggrieved by the order and award of the tribunal, the present appeal is filed by the K.S.R.T.C
2. Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the claim petition filed by the claimants was not maintainable. According to him, the claimants were not dependent legal representatives of the deceased. He contends that without there being any proof in regard to the income of the deceased, the tribunal has taken the income of the deceased as Rs. 2,400/- per month. He further contends that the tribunal has also committed an error in deducting only 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased when the claimants were not depending upon the income of the deceased. He further contends that the claimants are married brothers and sisters of the deceased and the deceased was the youngest among them. Even according to the claimants, the claimants are left with some agricultural land and therefore he contends that deduction of 1/3rd amount is required to be modified. He further contends that awarding of interest @ 9% p.a is also on excessive side. On these grounds, he requested this Court to dismiss the claimants petition or in the alternative, reduce the compensation awarded by the tribunal.
3. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the claimants contends that the tribunal considering the age of the deceased, has awarded the compensation. He also contends that the petition filed, by the claimants was perfectly maintainable as they are the legal representatives of the deceased. He further contends that under Section 166 of the M.V Act and claimants being the L.Rs of the deceased are entitled to claim compensation on account of the death of their brother. He further contends that awarding of interest or awarding of compensation under various heads are required to be maintained and ultimately he requested this Court to dismiss the appeal.
4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, what is required to be considered by us is:
1. Whether the brothers and sisters of the deceased can maintain a claim petition even though they were not depending upon the income of the deceased for their maintenance?
2. Whether the compensation awarded by the tribunal is on the excessive side?
5. The claimants have presented the claim petition under Section 166 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act. Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 166 of I.M.V Act, provides for filing of a claim petition by the legal representatives of the deceased. The said provision reads as hereunder:
Section 166(1): An application for compensation arising out of the accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of Section 165 may be made:
(C) Where the death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the Legal representatives of the deceased.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai1 has held that, a legal representative in a given case need not necessarily be a wife, husband, parent and child. A legal representative ordinarily means a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person or a person on whom the estate devolves on the death of an individual.
7. When we look into Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, when a mala Hindu died intestate, his property has to be devolved according to the provision of Section 8.
(a). Firstly, upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in Class-1 of the Schedule;
(b) Secondly, if there is no heir of Class-I then upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in Class-II of the Schedule;
8. In the instant case, there are no Class-I legal heirs to the deceased Shivanna. The claimants are the brothers and sisters who will come as class-II legal heirs under the Hindu Succession Act. Therefore, the petition filed by the claimants was maintainable before the tribunal.
9. In the circumstances, we are not in a position to accept the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the KSRTC. Accordingly, we hold that the petition filed by the claimants was maintainable before the tribunal and that they are entitled for compensation.
10. Then the next question that arises for our consideration is, the quantum of compensation payable to the claimants by the KSRTC. No doubt, as contended by the learned Counsel for the KSRTC, the claimants have not proved the income of the deceased except, saying that he was looking after the agricultural operations. It has also come in the evidence that Shivanna was the youngest child to their parents and all the brothers and sisters are married. PW-1 who is examined before the tribunal is the Kartha of the joint family. There was no partition among the brothers. So, in the circumstances, we have to consider the income of the deceased considering the land owned by the family. The claimants have also not produced any documentary evidence to show the extent of land owned by them. In the absence of such evidence, considering the nature of work of the deceased, we have to assess the income of the deceased. The accident has taken place in the year 1994. According to us, in the year 1994 even an agricultural coolie was getting an income of Rs. 60/- per day. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the income of the deceased was Rs. 60/- per day and the monthly income of the deceased has to be assessed at Rs. 1,800/- per month. It is not the case of the claimants that they were depending upon the deceased for their livelihood. In the circumstances, we have to deduct 50% of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. But the tribunal has deducted only 1/3rd of his income towards his personal expenses and assessed the loss of dependency. The tribunal has applied the multiplier of 15. Considering the age of the deceased, the proper multiplier applicable in this case is 14. Considering the income of the deceased, the contribution of the deceased towards his family has to be taken at Rs. 10,800/- per annum. If we apply the multiplier of 14, the loss of dependency has to be arrived at Rs. 1,51,200/-. In addition to that, we are inclined to award Rs. 4,000/- towards funeral expenses.
11. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs. 1,55,200/- and the same is rounded of to Rs. 1,55,000/-. The tribunal has awarded interest @ 9% p.a It is a case of death and the accident has taken place prior to 14.11.94 (prior to the amendment). Considering these aspects into consideration, we are inclined to reduce the interest from 9% to 6% p.a
12. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part. In modification of the order and award of the tribunal, we hold that the claimants are entitled for a compensation of Rs. 1,55,000/- together with interest at 6% p.a from the date of petition till the date of payment.
13. A submission is also made by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the appellant KSRTC has already deposited. Rs. 1,63,000/- and the said amount has been withdrawn by the respondents-claimants. Therefore, the claimants herein are entitled only for the remaining portion of the interest. The KSRTC is granted two months time to deposit the remaining amount of compensation.