AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. Manohar, J.—Appellant have filed this appeal challenging the judgment and award dated 9-12-2009 made in M.V.C. No. 75/2007 by the Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and Member, MACT, Hubli (for short ''Tribunal'').
Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 are the wife and children of one Shriram Rangaiah. They filed the claim petition contending that on 10-12-2005, the said Shriram Rangaiah was waiting to cross the road with his motor cycle bearing Regn. No. KA-29/Q-448 near SBI ; Bank on Keshwapur-Navalgund road. At the � time, an ambassador car bearing Regn. No. CAG-795, which was an escort car deployed 1 for the security of Hon''ble Prime Minister, came in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motor cycle. Due to that the rider of the motor cycle sustained grievous injuries. He was taken to hospital and he was inpatient from 10-12-2005 to 3-3-2006. Subsequently, he succumbed to the injuries on 3-3-2006. Claimants claimed that the deceased, Shriram Rangaiah had taken voluntary retirement from the post of Inspector in South Western Railways. Therefore, he was working as an Administrator in Indian Jain Youth Federation Mechanical Limb Centre, KIMS Campus, Hubli and getting salary of 3,000/- p.m. and pension of Rs. 4,000/- p.m. In view of the death of the Shriram Rangaiah, the family has lost the bread earner. At the time of accident, he was aged about 54 years and sought for compensation of Rs. 11,93,000/-.
In pursuance of the notice issued by the Tribunal, respondents in the claim petition entered appearance and filed written statements denying the entire averments made in the claim petition and also denied the rash had negligent driving of the Ambassador car. The case of the respondents is that when the Prime Minister was proceeding on the road, the deceased had suddenly tried to cross the road. In view of that, the Ambassador car dashed against him and succumbed to the injuries. The criminal case lodged against the driver of the Ambassador car was ended in acquittal. Further, claim petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. The claimants in order to prove their case, the third claimant examined himself as PW1 anti examined two other witnesses, who were the eye-witnesses of the incident and got marked the documents as Ex. PI to Ex. PI 1. On behalf of respondents, none of the witnesses were examined and no documents were marked.
On the basis of oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties and taking into consideration the spot panchanama, IMV report, copy of complaint and charge-sheet, the Tribunal held that due to rash and negligent driving of the Ambassador car by its driver, the accident had occurred. Claimants are dependants of the deceased and they are entitled for compensation. With regard to the quantum of compensation is concerned, Tribunal taking into consideration the income of the deceased as Rs. 6,721/- p.m., (Rs. 3,721/- p.m. towards pensionary benefit and Rs. 3,000/- p.m. towards salary of the deceased as he was working as Administrator in Mahaveer Jain Limbs Centre, KIMS Campus, Hubli, deducting ⅓rd towards his personal expenditure and applying the multiplier 11 (Rs. 4,481/- x 11 x 12), awarded a sum of Rs. 5,91,360/- towards loss of dependency, Rs. 14,138/- towards medical expenses and Rs. 30,000/- towards conventional heads. In all, a sum of Rs. 6,35,498/- has been awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Due to negligence on the part of the Ambassador car, the accident had occurred and the rider of the motor cycle having valid and effective driving license, the liability has been fastened on the respondents-appellants herein, who are the owner of the car to compensate the claimants. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, appellants have preferred this appeal.
Though the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 have been served with notice, they remained unrepresented.
I have carefully considered the argument addressed by Sri. Ravi V. Hosamani, learned AGA appearing for the appellants and Sri. T.M. Nadaf, learned Advocate appearing for respondent No. 6 and perused the judgment and award, oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties.
The occurrence of the accident and the death of the deceased due to actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the Ambassador car are not in dispute. The dispute is with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded taking the income as Rs. 6,721/- p.m. Though the appellants have taken several contentions in the written statement, they have not stepped into the witness box to lead any evidence. In the absence of the same, it is not open to the appellants to contend that, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal ; is on the higher side. Admittedly, the accident had occurred in the year 2005. The deceased had taken voluntary retirement from the South Western Railways. Thereafter, he was working as an Administrator in Mahaveer Jain Limbs Centre, KIMS Campus, Hubli. The Bank statement of the deceased and also his salary certificate issued by Mahaveer Jain Limbs Centre were produced to substantiate his income. The same has not been disputed by the appellants. The Tribunal taking the income of Rs. 3,721/- p.m. towards pensionary benefit and Rs. 3,000/- p.m. towards salary of the deceased, who was working as Administrator in Mahaveer Jain Limbs Centre, KIMS Campus, Hubli, deducting ⅓rd towards his personal expenditure and applying the multiplier 11 since the deceased was aged about 54 years at the time of accident awarded the compensation. Hence, I find no infirmity or irregularity in the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is in accordance with law. The appellants have not made out a case to interfere with the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
The amount in deposit is directed to be transferred to the concerned Tribunal for disbursement.
In view of dismissal of the above appeal, I.A. 1/2011 is also dismissed.