AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. Sreenivase Gowda, J.—This appeal is by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.
Heard. The appeal is admitted and with the consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties it is taken up for final disposal.
For the sake of convenience parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition.
Brief facts of the case are:
That on 16.10.2006 when deceased Mohammad Rafiq was proceeding in a motorcycle bearing registration No. KA-19-L-4285 as a pillion rider from Mangalore to Kariyangala near Kanjila a jeep bearing registration No. KA-19-M-9252 came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against his motorcycle. Due to the impact deceased was thrown out to road and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately he was shifted to hospital where he succumbed to injuries. His parents, brother and sisters filed a claim petition before MACT, Mangalore seeking compensation of ` 10,00,000/- and the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 3,14,000/- with interest at 6% p.a.
The claimants in support of their contention that the deceased was earning Rs. .250/- to Rs. .400/- per day by running a hotel except examining the mother of the deceased as PW 1 and an eye witness to the accident as PW 2 have not produced any document in that regard.
Considering the age of the deceased as 30 years as evident from post mortem report Ex. P 3 and year of accident as 2006 his income is assessed at Rs. .4,000/-p.m. as against Rs. 3,000/- p.m. assessed by the Tribunal. As the deceased was a bachelor 50% of his income is to be deducted towards his personal expenses and multiplier of 11 is to be applied as per the age of his mother who is about 53 years. Accordingly loss of dependency works out to Rs. 2,64,000/- ( Rs. 4,000/- x 50% x 12 x 11) and there is no scope for enhancement under this head. In addition to that the Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs. .50,000/- under conventional heads.
As the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and there is no scope for enhancement of compensation under any head, the appeai is dismissed as devoid of merit.
No order as to cost.